Again, I disagree that a Proposer and Endorsers are required for the reasons I stated before – but if there are three Forum members who want to volunteer as the Proposer and the two Endorsers for Ballots Forum-5 and SC-5 (Vice Chair of Forum and SCWG), I will include their names in the ballots.
So far, no one has offered to be a Proposer or Endorser of either ballot. If we do not receive enough Proposers and Endorsers for the two ballots, we will proceed with the ballots without them. From: Tim Hollebeek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 7:26 AM To: Wayne Thayer <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair This is correct. The ballot requirements for endorsers and discussion periods applies to _all_ ballots. The bylaws are pretty clear on that; it’s even in the title of section 2.3. The fact that 4.1(c) of the bylaws requires a ballot does not override the usual ballot rules. I really hate to nitpick about things like this, but I felt I had to point it out. Also if we could get a second endorser to fix the voting rules after Ballot 216 got accidentally overwritten, that’d be great. I can write up the ballot over the weekend. -Tim From: Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:55 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC5: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Vice Chair 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
