On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > If both ballots pass, Ballot 190 will > wipe out the changes in BR 3.2.2.4 that are made by Ballot 204. (We should > try to avoid multiple ballots amending the same BR section in the future.)
Hi Kirk, I appreciate you sharing this perspective, and I understand why it can add to the confusion. I do want to point out that this was extensively discussed during the IPR policy discussions, and was in fact substantially addressed by it. That is, it was an explicit design goal of the revised IPR policy to allow for multiple ballots amending the same BR section. You can see how this process was defined in section 2.3(j) of our Bylaws, which I see you have updated your Ballot 190 to align with, which is necessary, given yours is the later-ending ballot. I appreciate that, as the alternative would have been Gerv updating Ballot 204, and he's on vacation. It's worth considering that part of this challenge has been through the multiple 'restarts' of Ballot 190, largely due to Ballot 190 having issues raised during the pre-discussion that were not addressed. From this perspective, it may be that our takeaway should be that we should try to ensure we address substantive feedback before forcing a ballot forward. We've seen this several times recently, and while the eagerness and excitement from CAs to update the Baseline Requirements is encouraging and refreshing, it is perhaps this over eagerness that is contributing to the challenges you're seeing. Best, Ryan _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
