[cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Jul 11 23:10:55 UTC 2016


That doesn't seem like a strong argument for them, and seems to create a
substantial area for risk.

The implications are that a failure to vote become even moreso a 'fail
open' (default pass) rather than the current structure, which is 'fail
closed' (default fails if it can't obtain quorum or the requisite
constituencies)

It's clear that members have had some disagreements about what constitutes
'minor' matters. And it's also true that sometimes changes meant to be
benign (e.g. fix reference from X to Y) can in fact have significant
ramifications to the interpretation of the document.

While I understand and appreciate the desire to try to simplify the
balloting processing, I'd be curious if you can think of any Ballots that
you feel were a waste of time or caused clutter. As someone who has often
argued against "change for change's sake", it would help if you could
provide a bit more evidence of the need for this proposed process, so that
it could be understood the problem you're trying to solve.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> wrote:

> For some time I have been thinking about proposing a Bylaws addition that
> allows for “Consent Ballots”, just as corporations and LLCs have.
>
>
>
> I don’t have specific language right now, but basically this would allow
> the Chair (and/or Vice-Chair?) to propose a “Consent Ballot” (or similar
> name) reserved only for minor matters such as typos or obvious errors,
>  acceptance of new CABF members after discussion of an application in a
> Forum call (right now we just accept by consensus on the call), renumbering
> sections, etc.  A Consent Ballot would be posted to the Public list, and
> any single Member could object in [7? 10?] days.  If there is an objection,
> the matter would have to start again via a regular Ballot method – two
> endorsers, one week review, one week for voting, etc.  If there is no
> objection during the time limit, the change would be made.  (Or after
> clarification, maybe a new Consent Ballot could be started if justified.)
> Consent Ballots would be clearly marked as such in the Subject line – and
> maybe we send two deadline reminders before the period to object expires.
>
>
>
> A Member could object to use of the Consent Ballot for any reason (no
> reason need be given), including feeling that discussion or clarification
> was needed – it would not necessarily mean opposition to the proposal, and
> a Member who objects to a Consent Ballot might very well end up voting in
> support in a regular Ballot.
>
>
>
> The main reason for adding a Consent Ballot process is so we don’t waste
> time (two weeks) and clutter up our Ballot record with minor stuff which
> doesn’t really need a full Ballot.
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 7:33 AM
> *To:* Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> Would anyone have an objection if we just changed the “6” to an “f” since
> it’s an obvious erratum / minor transcription error?
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dean Coclin
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 10, 2016 3:47 PM
> *To:* public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* [cabfpub] Bylaw correction pre-ballot
>
>
>
> I noticed an error when I was reviewing the bylaws after a recent vote.
> The current bylaws (section 2.2) read as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
> *2.2       Ballots Among Forum Members*
>
>
>
> Ballots will be conducted in accordance with the following rules.
>
>
>
> (a)  Only votes by Members shall be accepted.
>
>
>
> (b)  Only one vote per Member company shall be accepted; representatives
> of corporate affiliates shall not vote.
>
>
>
> (c)  A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be
> published for review and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot
> needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The review
> period then shall take place for at least seven calendar-days before votes
> are cast.
>
>
>
> (d)  The CA/Browser Forum shall provide seven calendar-days for voting,
> with the deadline clearly communicated via the members’ electronic mailing
> list. All voting will take place online via the members’ electronic mailing
> list.
>
>
>
> (e)  Only votes that indicate a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to the ballot
> question shall be considered (i.e. votes to abstain and votes that do not
> indicate a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response will not figure in the calculation
> of item 6, below).
>
>
>
> (f)   Members fall into two categories: CAs (comprising issuing CAs and
> root CAs, as defined in the membership criteria) and product suppliers (as
> defined in the membership criteria). In order for the motion to be adopted
> by the Forum, two-thirds or more of the votes cast by the Members in the CA
> category must be in favor of the motion, and at least 50% plus one of the
> votes cast by the members in the browser category must be in favor of the
> motion.  At least one CA Member and one browser Member must vote in favor
> of a ballot for the ballot to be adopted.
>
>
>
> (g)  A ballot result will be considered valid only when more than half of
> the number of currently active members has participated. The number of
> currently active members is the average number of member organizations that
> have participated in the previous three meetings (both teleconferences and
> face-to-face meetings).
>
>
>
> (h)  The CA/Browser Forum will tabulate and announce the results within
> one calendar-day of the close of the voting period.
>
>
>
> There is no “item 6, below” in (e) but in talking to Kirk who wrote this,
> he took it from the old website and forgot to change “6” to “f”.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any other bylaw corrections that we could put into 1
> ballot?
>
> Thanks
> Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160711/81c1b57f/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list