Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:

> I think this is a good idea; perhaps we could roll up all ballots
> approved in a given month into a review period triggered on the 1st of
> the following month.
>

This is (roughly) how the Forum previously conducted IP reviews, as
reflected in https://cabforum.org/category/governance/ipr/
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Gervase Markham via Public]

On 18/11/16 20:10, Peter Bowen wrote:
> changes/pull requests.  I think a “Final Guideline” is basically a
> new major version of a Guideline and a Final Maintenance Guideline is
> a new minor version of a Guideline.

Other than when the document is entirely new, when it's clearly an FG,
in this construction how does one decide what is a new major and what is
a new minor version?

> This does suggest a possible process optimization — we allow multiple
> ballots be included in a FMG.  This would delay adoption of the
> guideline but would also reduce the number of reviews needed.  If
> this is considered to be desirable, we could increate the maximum
> duration between announcement of results of a ballot and initiation
> of the Review Period.  This would come at the tradeoff of a longer
> potential period from the start of the ballot review period to the
> approval of a guideline containing the changes.

I think this is a good idea; perhaps we could roll up all ballots
approved in a given month into a review period triggered on the 1st of
the following month.

Gerv
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Gervase Markham via Public]

On 17/11/16 21:40, Geoff Keating via Public wrote:
> This is a good policy as far as it goes, but it seems to omit the
> role of the PAG, which might look at the exclusion notices and
> determine that they don’t really apply, are not significant for most
> members, or similar.  My suggestion would be to add:


I should have read the whole thread before replying! Great minds...

Gerv

___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Gervase Markham via Public]

Hi Peter,

This seems like an excellent way forward. Two questions:

1) can you help me understand the definitions of FG and FMG you are
using here? My understanding was that an FG was an entirely new
document, and an FMG was, in effect, a diff (or perhaps, technically, an
existing document with the diff applied) - but your definitions seem to
be different.

2) It may be that, under certain circumstances, the CAB Forum does want
to allow something to become part of the standard to which exclusion
notices are applied. For example, there are 10 ways of doing something,
and 1 of them is IPR-encumbered, and the PAG decides that's OK. In this
case, I would expect a vote on the 10 ways, an IPR review, an Exclusion
Notice raised, a PAG, the PAG says it's OK, and then a new ballot, the
same Exclusion Notices... but then you are in an infinite loop, as the
Chair can never approve, as he's not allowed to approve a ballot on
which exclusion notices have been filed.

I think we should have provision that the PAG is allowed to recommend
that we revote an identical ballot in full knowledge of the exclusions
and, if it passes, it becomes effective immediately (as IPR review was
already done after the first vote). This would be option a) of those the
PAG is allowed to conclude, in section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy.

> I believe that adopting this process will only require modifying the
> bylaws, which we can do via vote, rather than require modifying the
> IPR policy and getting new IPR agreements from all members.

This is a key question; it would be great if it were possible. Let's
look at some key sentences of the IPR policy:

"CAB Forum will ordinarily not approve a Guideline if it is aware that
Essential Claims exist which are not available on RF terms."

This bylaw change defines "approval" something the chair does, and
thereby certainly meets the above, as the chair will ordinarily (but see
above) not approve any ballot on which exclusion notices have been filed.

"Prior to the approval of a CAB Forum Draft Guideline as a CAB Forum
Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline there shall be a review
period..."

Yep, this is met. Review happens before Chair approval.

"In the event a patent has been disclosed that may contain an Essential
Claim, but such Essential Claim is not available under CAB Forum RF
Licensing, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the
conflict."

Yep, we can do that - nothing in what you say prevents it.

This bylaw change does not clear up all the ambiguities in the IPR
Policy (that would require changes to that policy), but perhaps it would
be a good enough basis to move forward on and get the CAB Forum back on
its feet.

Gerv
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Jeremy Rowley via Public]

I like the proposal and think Geoff's edits ensure there is still a role for 
the PAG. However, I'd suggest changing the process to the forum "may" hold 
another ballot after review by the PAG using the standard proposer plus two 
endorser approach. There isn’t a timeline for the PAG, and the Forum may move 
on using an alternate prior to the PAG completing its work. In that case, the 
ballot may no longer be relevant.  
 

-Original Message-
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Keating 
via Public
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:41 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Cc: Geoff Keating <geo...@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal


> On 17 Nov 2016, at 12:52 pm, Peter Bowen via Public <public@cabforum.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear CA/Browser Forum colleagues,
> 
> We have heard a number of concerns about the processes we have been using for 
> ballots and how those processes interact with our IPR policy over the last 
> few weeks.  It has been raised that we don't have a clearly spelled out 
> process.  I've also heard members raise that they don't want to vote to 
> approve something that could end up being adopted with exclusion notices 
> applying.
> 
> Therefore, Amazon proposes to modify our bylaws to reflect that the chair is 
> responsible for approving Draft Guidelines to become Final Guidelines (FG) or 
> Final Maintenance Guidelines (FMG). The chair may only approve by following 
> the process below.
> 
> 1) A ballot among members of the Forum must approve a motion to initiate the 
> adoption process.
> - The ballot may be withdrawn during the review period
> - The ballot may receive small corrections during the review period
> - The ballot must indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline (FG) or 
> Final Maintenance Guideline (FMG)
> - The ballot must include either:
>  a) the full text of a Draft Guideline proposed to become a FG or FMG, or
>  b) a set of changes relative to an existing approved FG or FMG
> 
> 2) Within two business days of the announcement of the results of the ballot, 
> if the ballot is valid and is adopted, the Chair shall initiate the Review 
> Period described in the IPR policy.  The review period will be initiated by 
> sending notice to both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List.  The 
> notice shall include the full text of the Draft Guideline.  If the ballot 
> contained a set of changes relative to an existing FG or FMG, the Draft 
> Guideline is formed by applying the changes to the existing approved FG or 
> FMG.
> 
> 3) At the end of the Review Period (either 30 or 60 calendar days), the Chair 
> shall determine if any Exclusion Notices were received.  If no exclusion 
> notices were received, the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify 
> the Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site 
> list of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.  If exclusion notices were 
> received, the Chair shall not approve adoption of the Draft Guideline, and 
> shall notify the Public Mail List of the disapproval.
> 
> This process ensures that there will never be a case where any member is 
> voting on a guideline that will be adopted with exclusion notices.  It also 
> optimizes to move voting early in the process so that the vast majority of 
> ballots will pass and move to adoption at the end of the review period with 
> no further action, based on the observed set of exclusion notices received 
> upon adoption of IPR policy v1.2.

This is a good policy as far as it goes, but it seems to omit the role of the 
PAG, which might look at the exclusion notices and determine that they don’t 
really apply, are not significant for most members, or similar.  My suggestion 
would be to add:

4) If exclusion notices were received, a PAG shall be formed.  If it recommends 
approval despite the exclusion notices, then a second ballot (including review 
period, but no changes are allowed to the recommendation or the Draft Guideline 
in the review period) must be held to adopt the PAG’s recommendation.  If that 
second ballot passes, then the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify 
the Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site 
list of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.

(There are other things the PAG might recommend, many of which also will turn 
into motions, but only this path allows something to be approved with exclusion 
notices.)

> I believe that adopting this process will only require modifying the bylaws, 
> which we can do via vote, rather than require modifying the IPR policy and 
> getting new IPR agreements from all members.

I agree.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Geoff Keating via Public]

> On 17 Nov 2016, at 12:52 pm, Peter Bowen via Public  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear CA/Browser Forum colleagues,
> 
> We have heard a number of concerns about the processes we have been using for 
> ballots and how those processes interact with our IPR policy over the last 
> few weeks.  It has been raised that we don't have a clearly spelled out 
> process.  I've also heard members raise that they don't want to vote to 
> approve something that could end up being adopted with exclusion notices 
> applying.
> 
> Therefore, Amazon proposes to modify our bylaws to reflect that the chair is 
> responsible for approving Draft Guidelines to become Final Guidelines (FG) or 
> Final Maintenance Guidelines (FMG). The chair may only approve by following 
> the process below.
> 
> 1) A ballot among members of the Forum must approve a motion to initiate the 
> adoption process.
> - The ballot may be withdrawn during the review period
> - The ballot may receive small corrections during the review period
> - The ballot must indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline (FG) or 
> Final Maintenance Guideline (FMG)
> - The ballot must include either:
>  a) the full text of a Draft Guideline proposed to become a FG or FMG, or
>  b) a set of changes relative to an existing approved FG or FMG
> 
> 2) Within two business days of the announcement of the results of the ballot, 
> if the ballot is valid and is adopted, the Chair shall initiate the Review 
> Period described in the IPR policy.  The review period will be initiated by 
> sending notice to both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List.  The 
> notice shall include the full text of the Draft Guideline.  If the ballot 
> contained a set of changes relative to an existing FG or FMG, the Draft 
> Guideline is formed by applying the changes to the existing approved FG or 
> FMG.
> 
> 3) At the end of the Review Period (either 30 or 60 calendar days), the Chair 
> shall determine if any Exclusion Notices were received.  If no exclusion 
> notices were received, the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify 
> the Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site 
> list of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.  If exclusion notices were 
> received, the Chair shall not approve adoption of the Draft Guideline, and 
> shall notify the Public Mail List of the disapproval.
> 
> This process ensures that there will never be a case where any member is 
> voting on a guideline that will be adopted with exclusion notices.  It also 
> optimizes to move voting early in the process so that the vast majority of 
> ballots will pass and move to adoption at the end of the review period with 
> no further action, based on the observed set of exclusion notices received 
> upon adoption of IPR policy v1.2.

This is a good policy as far as it goes, but it seems to omit the role of the 
PAG, which might look at the exclusion notices and determine that they don’t 
really apply, are not significant for most members, or similar.  My suggestion 
would be to add:

4) If exclusion notices were received, a PAG shall be formed.  If it recommends 
approval despite the exclusion notices, then a second ballot (including review 
period, but no changes are allowed to the recommendation or the Draft Guideline 
in the review period) must be held to adopt the PAG’s recommendation.  If that 
second ballot passes, then the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify 
the Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site 
list of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.

(There are other things the PAG might recommend, many of which also will turn 
into motions, but only this path allows something to be approved with exclusion 
notices.)

> I believe that adopting this process will only require modifying the bylaws, 
> which we can do via vote, rather than require modifying the IPR policy and 
> getting new IPR agreements from all members.

I agree.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Steve Medin via Public]

> -Original Message-
> From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Bowen via Public
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:52 PM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
> Cc: Peter Bowen <p...@amzn.com>
> Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot process proposal
> 
> Dear CA/Browser Forum colleagues,
> 
[snip]
> 
> 3) At the end of the Review Period (either 30 or 60 calendar days), the
Chair
> shall determine if any Exclusion Notices were received.  If no exclusion
> notices were received, the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify
the
> Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site
list of
> FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.  If exclusion notices were received,
> the Chair shall not approve adoption of the Draft Guideline, and shall
notify
> the Public Mail List of the disapproval.

Doesn't this mean that if a member votes no, then the ballot passes, and the
member files an exclusion, they override the votes of the membership?


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

[cabfpub] Ballot process proposal

[Peter Bowen via Public]

Dear CA/Browser Forum colleagues,

We have heard a number of concerns about the processes we have been using for 
ballots and how those processes interact with our IPR policy over the last few 
weeks.  It has been raised that we don't have a clearly spelled out process.  
I've also heard members raise that they don't want to vote to approve something 
that could end up being adopted with exclusion notices applying.

Therefore, Amazon proposes to modify our bylaws to reflect that the chair is 
responsible for approving Draft Guidelines to become Final Guidelines (FG) or 
Final Maintenance Guidelines (FMG). The chair may only approve by following the 
process below.
 
1) A ballot among members of the Forum must approve a motion to initiate the 
adoption process.
- The ballot may be withdrawn during the review period
- The ballot may receive small corrections during the review period
- The ballot must indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline (FG) or 
Final Maintenance Guideline (FMG)
- The ballot must include either:
  a) the full text of a Draft Guideline proposed to become a FG or FMG, or
  b) a set of changes relative to an existing approved FG or FMG
 
2) Within two business days of the announcement of the results of the ballot, 
if the ballot is valid and is adopted, the Chair shall initiate the Review 
Period described in the IPR policy.  The review period will be initiated by 
sending notice to both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List.  The 
notice shall include the full text of the Draft Guideline.  If the ballot 
contained a set of changes relative to an existing FG or FMG, the Draft 
Guideline is formed by applying the changes to the existing approved FG or FMG.
 
3) At the end of the Review Period (either 30 or 60 calendar days), the Chair 
shall determine if any Exclusion Notices were received.  If no exclusion 
notices were received, the Chair shall approve the Draft Guideline, notify the 
Public Mail List of the Chair's approval, and update the Public Web Site list 
of FGs and FMGs with the new Guideline.  If exclusion notices were received, 
the Chair shall not approve adoption of the Draft Guideline, and shall notify 
the Public Mail List of the disapproval.

This process ensures that there will never be a case where any member is voting 
on a guideline that will be adopted with exclusion notices.  It also optimizes 
to move voting early in the process so that the vast majority of ballots will 
pass and move to adoption at the end of the review period with no further 
action, based on the observed set of exclusion notices received upon adoption 
of IPR policy v1.2.

I believe that adopting this process will only require modifying the bylaws, 
which we can do via vote, rather than require modifying the IPR policy and 
getting new IPR agreements from all members.

Thanks,
Peter
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public