Agreed. My specific concern is the notion of a 'vote-a-rama' of text changes to the Bylaws as the way of making progress.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> wrote: > There is a bit of a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing going on > here, though. > > > > I do think we need to do a better job of discriminating between critical, > blocking issues, > > and issues that can be resolved after the ballot. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 10:39 AM > *To:* Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> > *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Tim > Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; Dean Coclin < > dean.coc...@digicert.com>; Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working > Group meetings > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote: > > On 05/02/18 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's > > worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to > > allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an > > IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity > > of the Forum. > > Failure by whom? There have been innumerable rounds of review, and calls > for review, and pleadings for review. At what point do we stop? How > would you judge it? What would be your ballot triggers? > > > > And there's also been continued changes and corrections which themselves > introduce new issues. >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
