Perhaps I misunderstood Kirk's original intent so please correct me if
I'm wrong.
IMO the "editorial changes" proposal is independent to ballots being
discussed or voted on. The proposal is that at any time (_not during an
official ballot discussion or voting period_), if someone detects a typo
or an incorrect reference in a CA/B Forum document that fits the
definition of an "editorial change" (as noted in the W3C Process
Document provided by Virginia), that member may just send an e-mail to
the public list saying what the problem is and a recommended correction,
and that this is an "editorial change".
Examples that would probably qualify as "editorial changes" from past
cases:
1. "certificaet" to "certificate"
2. The name of the document "baseline requirements"
3. Incorrect references when the BRs were converted to RFC3647 format
Then, there are two possible routes:
1. If there is an objection made by a member, the change is no longer
considered "editorial" and it has to go through a separate ballot
process (changes proposed by a member, endorsed by two others,
discussed and voted on).
2. If there is no objection, it will be included in the text of an
upcoming ballot (whatever ballot that is), and this particular
change will be marked in the introduction section of the ballot as
"editorial change" or "errata", or whatever. It will be discussed
and voted along with the rest of the ballot language. Then, two
possible outcomes:
1. The ballot passes, and so are the "editorial changes"
2. The ballot fails, so the "editorial changes" will have to wait
for a next ballot
These "editorial changes" will always have to catch a "ballot train" in
order to be formally accepted. They can be introduced by any member when
there is no formal ballot discussion or voting period.
"Worst case scenario" I can think of:
1. The forum is discussing about a new ballot and the formal discussion
period starts at day X
2. A member introduces an "editorial change" _one day_ before day X.
3. The official discussion period for the new ballot begins, including
the text with the "editorial changes" at day X
4. Members have 7 days of official discussion to object to the
"editorial changes", in which case the ballot author and endorsers
will either remove these changes before the voting period begins or
let them be and risk the ballot failing.
I don't mind working on a separate ballot for this and let Gerv's ballot
go ahead. Would people support this? Do you see any other risks in this
process?
Dimitris.
On 10/12/2017 6:34 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
Kirk, Dimitris,
Could you explain how you imagine this process working? I think it's
presently underspecified, highlighting Gerv's concerns.
Here's just a small sample of realistic problems that would emerge:
1) At what point can such Editorial Changes be proposed? During
discussion or during voting?
2) At what point are objections raised? What happens if votes were
based on text that was Editorial, objections were raised that they're
not Editorial, and in the retrospective analysis of the original
language, the votes change?
Working through a simple analysis of timelines and identifying at what
point X can happen and at what point it can no longer happen would do
a great service in identifying further deficiencies in the proposed
language. I suspect that if we attempt to solve this problem, it will
inevitably end up looking very similar to our voting procedures, since
the design of those are to allow folks ample time to vote and to avoid
confusion as to what is being voted on. Thus, I question the
fundamental value.
I appreciate the enthusiasm being applied for what members may see as
'simple' fixes, but as we know with substantive changes in process,
these are hardly that.
Further, I would encourage those proposing the "Editorial Language" to
do so in a separate ballot. I think we'd be reasonably confident to
say that this is not a problem being introduced by this Ballot,
therefore, I would suggest we not attempt to solve it by attaching
unnecessarily to this ballot.
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Kirk Hall via Public
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
+1 – sounds good to me.
Gerv – are you willing to make this change to your draft ballot?
*From:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*Sent:* Friday, December 8, 2017 3:24 PM
*To:* Virginia Fournier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Kirk Hall
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gervase Markham
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update
Discussion Period
Offering a previously stated suggestion.
"Editorial changes" (the definitions 1 and 2 from W3C Process
Document seem reasonable) must be proposed to the public list and
clearly identified as such. If any voting member objects and
considers such change as "not editorial", then the formal ballot
process shall take place. if no objections are raised, then these
editorial changes shall be applied along with changes approved via
the next upcoming ballot.
Does this make sense?
Dimitris.
On 8/12/2017 9:14 μμ, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
Maybe we could state that “editorial” changes could be made
without restarting the discussion period. “Editorial” could
be defined something like 1 and 2 below (taken from the W3C
Process Document):
6.2.5 Classes of Changes
This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes
to a specification. The first two classes of change are
considered editorial changes, the latter two substantive changes.
*1. No changes to text content***
These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or
invalid markup.
*2. Corrections that do not affect conformance***
Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as
changing architectural or interoperability requirements or
their implementation. Changes which resolve ambiguities in the
specification are considered to change (by clarification) the
implementation requirements and do not fall into this class.
Examples of changes in this class include correcting
non-normative code examples where the code clearly conflicts
with normative requirements, clarifying informative use cases
or other non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical
errors where the change does not change implementation
requirements. If there is any doubt or dissent as to whether
requirements are changed, such changes do not fall into this
class.
*3. Corrections that do not add new features***
These changes /may/ affect conformance to the specification. A
change that affects conformance is one that:
·makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents
become non-conforming according to the new version, or
·makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become
conforming, or
·clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an
agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly
either conforming or non-conforming.
*4. New features***
Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.
Best regards,
Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595 <tel:%28669%29%20227-9595>
✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kirk Hall
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Gerv, this started as your ballot, so it's up to you - do you
want to allow such minor edits without restarting the
discussion period, or not?
If yes, you need to put defining / permissive language in the
ballot. I won't be comfortable if we have no written
permission for edits, but then allow them informally later
when ballots have errors - it needs to be in the ballot.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:23 PM
To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum
Public Discussion List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update
Discussion Period
On 08/12/17 18:17, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
Just putting the question to you in the abstract – do you
think we
should have to restart a seven day discussion just to
correct an
obvious typo?
Let us say the answer to that question is "no". Then the
obvious next question is: "how do you, the proponent of this
idea, define 'obvious typo' in a way which does not open the
door to substantive changes, or changes which people would
argue about the substantiveness of, and without inventing Yet
Another Voting/Polling Mechanism"?
Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
<https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
<https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
