I don’t agree – I think Bylaw Sec. 4.1 on Election of Officers stands on its
own, and *requires* a ballot after the close of the nominating period, whether
or not there is a proposer or two endorsers:
(c) Manner of holding officer elections: If a single individual is nominated
for a position, the Forum *will* hold a ballot to confirm appointment of the
nominee. For the confirmation ballot, each Member is entitled to a single vote
regardless of the number of participating Member representatives or whether the
Member is categorized as a Certificate (or Root Certificate) Issuer or a
Certificate Consumer. ***
If more than one candidate is nominated for Chair or Vice Chair, the Forum
*will* announce an election ballot to determine which candidate will fill the
position. Within two weeks after the close of the nomination period, the Chair
or Vice Chair will establish an election committee ***
The Bylaws say we “will” hold a ballot, not “may”, and the Bylaws can’t force
any member to be a proposer or endorser – so I think this section stands on its
own, and requires that we hold a ballot without having to find a proposer and
two endorsers (which is just common sense as well).
In contrast, all other ballots of the Forum are proposals by a Member for
adoption of or for changes to Requirements, Bylaws, or Charters. By their
nature, these proposals are new ideas and *need* a proposer, or else there
would be no ballot in the first place. Years ago, when we came up with
informal rules for how to adopt new proposals, we decided any proposal should
also have two endorsers to show some support in the Forum before a vote – so we
added the requirement of two endorsers before a proposal would be put to a vote.
About two years ago, when we modified our Bylaws to make sure we were complying
with our IPR Agreement, we added Section 2.4 that only applies to Draft
Guideline Ballots, and we put the general rules for ballots in Bylaw 2.3 that
apply to “all” ballots. But for the reasons stated above, I don’t believe
Bylaw 2.3 overrides the requirement of Bylaw 4.1 that we *will* hold a ballot
to confirm or elect an officer after nominations close (the nominations are, in
effect, the proposal by the candidates).
Rather than arguing about something that’s not really a major issue for the
Forum and only happens every two years (after all, Ballot SC5 only has one
candidate, and Ballot Forum-5 only has two candidates – pretty basic choices
where Members can express their preferences by voting), here is a simple
solution: if any Member thinks we should have a proposer and two endorsers for
election ballots under Bylaw 4.1 – please go ahead and announce you are a
proposer or an endorser of the two ballots (Forum-5 and SC5). I will happily
append that information to each ballot, so we are covered no matter who is
right on this issue. OK? And if no one comes forward, we will simply proceed
with the ballots as is.
It looks like we have other Bylaws clarifications we want to consider in the
future (including membership requirements), so I suggest the Governance Change
Working Group add this issue to the list – Does the election of officers under
Bylaw 4.1 require a proposer and two endorsers, or not?
________________________________
Bylaws section 2.3 ("General Provisions Applicable to all Ballots") says "Any
proposed ballot needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed."
The language in section 4 describing "confirmation ballots" and "election
ballots" appears to fall under this requirement.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM Kirk Hall via Public
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
DigiCert has not specified the concerns it has with the form of ballot.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 3:14 PM
To: Kirk Hall
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; CABFPub
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate
Working Group Vice Chair
Doesn't this ballot have the same issues with compliance to our Bylaws that
DigiCert noted? That is, consistency with Section 2.3 of the Bylaws?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:17 PM Kirk Hall via Public
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair – Term
Nov. 1, 2018 – Oct. 31, 2020
-Motion begins-
In accordance with Bylaw 4.1(c), Wayne Thayer is hereby elected Vice Chair of
the Server Certificate Working Group for a term commencing on November 1, 2018
and continuing through October 31, 2020.
-Motion ends-
The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
Votes should be either “Yes” or “No”, and should be sent to the Public list.
Voting period: (7 days)
Start Time: Thursday, September 6 at 11:00 am Eastern Time
End Time: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 11:00 am Eastern Time
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
