On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:21 AM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> People fought pretty hard for the ability to post ballots without > redlines; this isn’t the first by far. I actually opposed that and lost. > > > > I looked at the last handful of ballots. All of them (224, 223, 220, 219, and 218) included redlines. > I strongly encourage attachment of redlines, and this is the first time I > haven’t, unfortunately due to time constraints. I try to do it whenever > possible. > > > > It's more than encouraged - the bylaws require redlines. > I believe if you look at the definitions, a Draft Guideline Ballot is the > ballot posted by the chair after voting ends as part of the IPR process. > That’s my recollection. > > > > The bylaws contain no definition of "Draft Guideline Ballot". Bylaws section 2.3 begins by stating "The following rules will apply to all ballots, including Draft Guideline Ballots...", so I think you are mistaken. > -Tim > > > > *From:* Kirk Hall [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:40 PM > *To:* Wayne Thayer <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]>; Tim Hollebeek < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: > Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements > > > > Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***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, and > need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or > comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they > exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into > consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as > provided in Section 2.4(j) below.” > > > > I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the > ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first > to see the context and what was changed. > > > > Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think? Is the form of Ballot 221 > compliant with the Bylaws? Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have > a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing > the changes from the current NetSec Requirements? > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
