While I still disagree with your personal interpretation – why can’t we do things the way other deliberative bodies do? – as I said before, I have no problem including “Notes” at the end of provisions that are not part of the BRs, but which inform readers of what the transition rules for a particular ballot are. The notes can then be dropped once they are no longer relevant.
So we can include Section 2 of Ballot 190 as a “Note” after BR 3.2.2.4, which is the section affected by the transition rule, then remove it once the transition period is over – everyone will see that in the compiled version of the updated BRs. Sounds like a solution we can all live with. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:36 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can you explain what part of Ballot 190 (shown below) is not clear to you? Do you have edits you would suggest that would “fix” the problem you see? From my earlier message, as it looks like you may have missed it: "If you want to accomplish this, however, you would need to update Section 4.2.1 to specify how that process works. Otherwise, Section 4.2.1 will govern, and Section 2 of this ballot will have no effect due to its ambiguity and lack of modification to the document." We have a section in the document that governs this. It's Section 4.2.1. We have a section in the document that calls out effective dates. It's Section 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. We have a defined process in our bylaws to modify those sections. Let's follow it, and not invent new procedures ad hoc.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
