Yes Kirk, your understanding is correct. What Geoff and Gerv have offered is consistent with what I proposed as "Option 3"
I made the following suggestions on how to resolve this: > 3) The ballot is invalid (due to the inconsistency) > - In this case, we're saying the ballot is null because of the mismatch > - Supporting Argument: The Bylaws in 2.3(a) indicate that a Draft > Guideline Ballot proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline will include a > redline or comparison, and that such redline or comparison be made against > the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time the ballot is > proposed. Jeremy's redline was not against that section, ergo, was not a > valid ballot. > - Solution Suggestion: Hold a ballot to agree on this interpretation for > this specific ballot > - Solution Suggestion p2: Adopt it fixed It sounds like there's at least sufficient agreement here to endorse a ballot, which would unambiguously resolve any questions of process for this or the future :) On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > Geoff and Gerv - I was going to accept Ballot 198 as proposed in the text > of Jeremy's May 3 email that starts "The ballot is now in voting". But I > guess earlier versions of the ballot during the discussion period had > language that was different from the language in the attached pdf - I see > that is true for Jeremy's email dated April 24. > > Bylaw 2.3(a) says in part "If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a > Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or > comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) > intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline ***." So that implies the > redline version is part of the ballot, along with stated text in the email > message containing the ballot. Here, they were not the same. > > So is your opinion that we should record the result of Ballot 198 as > "Invalid" or "Failed"? That probably makes sense, and I can withdraw the > Review Notice. > > What do others think about how we should mark the status of Ballot 198? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase > Markham via Public > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:17 AM > To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Revised Notice of Review Period - Ballot > 198 - .Onion Revisions > > On 16/05/17 21:39, Geoff Keating via Public wrote: > > The ‘ballot’ is the thing that includes the ‘redline or comparison’, > > bylaws section 2.3(a). If it doesn’t have one of those, it’s not a > > ballot. So the redline is definitely part of the ballot and if > > there’s some confusion it can be consulted to make it clear what > > change was voted on. > > > > In addition, the redline has to be against a specific version of the > > guidelines. If that wasn’t done properly, to the point where there’s > > a question as to what the ballot means or where votes might have been > > made based on the incorrect information, then I’d think the ballot > > would be invalid. > > I think this is the best interpretationof the bylaws. > > Gerv > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
