In the past, we have let ballot authors correct typos - such as "certificaet" to "certificate". Would that no longer be allowed (meaning, would that type of editing to a ballot require the restart of a new seven day discussion period)?
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 I agree with Ryan’s concerns below. Virginia Fournier Sent from my iPhone Please excuse iTypos > On Dec 6, 2017, at 3:58 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Public mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > Process (Kirk Hall) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:58:48 +0000 > From: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>, CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion > Period Process > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > My thinking was that the phrase we choose would itself indicate that > corrections could only be made if they didn?t present any substantive issues. > How would you phrase that concept so it was clear to all? > > From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:27 PM > To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > Cc: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; Gervase Markham > <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > Process > > Do you have a more concrete proposal for how that would look that addresses > the issues that have been repeatedly raised over the years with such > proposals? > > As we've seen in past conversations, including Ballot 190, both typographical > and numbering corrections have had profound normative impact. Discussions > about structures organized such as "1 and 2 and 3" (within lists) being > unclear as to whether they're "(1 and 2) or 3" or "1 and (2 or 3)" > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Kirk Hall via Public > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > We will also endorse. > > Gerv, do you want to allow ?minor typographical and numbering corrections? > without restarting the 7 day discussion period? > > From: Public > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > >] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:54 AM > To: Gervase Markham <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > Process > > I?ll endorse this one. > > I still have some concerns about forcing a 7 day wait might cause problems if > a new version of the ballot simply has a spelling correction or minor wording > clarification. We can see if it?s actually a problem in practice if I?m the > only one who feels that way. > > But the most important thing is removing the automatic start of voting when > we may or may not be ready. And I think that would be a great improvement. > > -Tim > > From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase > Markham via Public > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:00 AM > To: CABFPub <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process > > > [Here's a repost of my proposed text to fix the issue that Tim has > helpfully recently re-raised.] > > Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process > > Purpose of Ballot: The current voting procedures specify a "period of > discussion", the duration of which is fixed before the ballot process begins. > This ballot updates that to instead have the period of discussion be more > flexible, to avoid it expiring while discussion is ongoing and thereby voting > on a sub-optimal ballot. > > The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and > endorsed by XXX of XXX and XXX of XXX: > > -- MOTION BEGINS -- > > This ballot modifies the CAB Forum Bylaws. > > In Section 2.3(c), replace the text: > > "The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven but no more > than 14 calendar days before votes are cast. The proposer of the ballot will > designate the length of the discussion period, and each ballot shall clearly > state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for both the > discussion period and the voting period." > > with: > > "The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven calendar days > before votes are cast. At any time, a new version of the ballot (marked with > a distinguishing version number) may be posted by the proposer in the same > manner as the original. Once no new version of the ballot has been posted for > seven calendar days, the proposer may end the discussion period and start the > voting period by reposting the final version of the ballot and clearly > indicating that voting is to begin, along with the start and end dates and > times (including time zone) for the voting period. The ballot automatically > fails if 21 calendar days elapse since the proposer last posted a version of > the ballot and the voting period has not been started." > > Similarly, in Section 2.4(b), replace the text: > > "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at > least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast on a > Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start and end dates of such discussion > period clearly specified in the ballot." > > with: > > "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at > least seven days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the > start date of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot. The > discussion period shall end and the voting period shall commence also > according to the procedure specified in Section 2.3(c)." > > In Section 2.3(d) of the CAB Forum Bylaws, replace the text: > > "Upon completion of the discussion period, Members shall have" > > with: > > "Upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have" > > Similarly, in Section 2.4(c), replace the text: > > "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon completion of such discussion period, > Members shall have" > > with: > > "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon commencement of the voting period, > Members shall have" > > -- MOTION ENDS -- > > The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: > > > Start time (22:00 UTC) > > > End time (22:00 UTC) > > > Discussion (7 to 14 days) > > > XXX > > > XXX > > > Vote for approval (7 days) > > > XXX > > > XXX > > > Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the > Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the > response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote > to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses > will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a > voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting > members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ In order for the > motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the > CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser > category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under > Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the > ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, > or abstaining. > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > scrubbed... > URL: > <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171206/1474039a/at > tachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 > ************************************** _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
