[cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when discussion ends, and not before

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Dec 5 20:41:56 UTC 2017


Right, I'm totally in line with the "Send it when it's ready" - but I'm
concerned about the last minute changes -> force to a vote approach.

It has the downside of changing what is, today, effectively 14 days review
- since review can start during the discussion phase, ideally feedback can
be provided in the first 7, and voting doesn't end until 7 days after -
into a 7 day review, as there may have been last minute changes introduced.
That's why I see that flexibility as being a bit undesirable; in the best
case, it allows unintentional harm and, to some extent, this change would
encourage that pattern.

I guess I'm curious - are there cases where having to restart the 7 day
discussion clock would be undesirable? The only situation I could think of
was time-sensitive changes, but I think we both agree that those are a
symptom of a bigger problem and not the thing to optimize for.

Another positive benefit of the 'mandatory' 7 day review is that it allows
for actionable feedback to be provided by our Interested Parties and
Associate Members. That is, their feedback can inform further changes and
corrections (with a clock restart), whereas without a forced clock restart,
there's no way to incorporate that feedback short of a 'no' vote.

Mandatory minimum time to review (final) text is fairly common in a number
of organizations - both SDOs and legislative - and doesn't seem as if it
would be too onerous.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> I’m actually extremely supportive of this line of reasoning.  That’s why
> this ballot actually LENGTHENS the discussion period for all ballots.  I
> agree that “fix it later” is horrible, and that it is better to take up to
> 30 days to get it right (I’d even support lengthening that number if people
> want to do so).  It’s the arbitrariness of “voting starts immediately after
> seven days, regardless of where the discussion has gone” that drives those
> bad decisions.  I want to fix the perverse incentive that puts us in those
> bad situations.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:19 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when
> discussion ends, and not before
>
>
>
> There have been more cases of bugs being introduced through changes than
> there have been of typographical errors. There's also been the repeated
> suggestion to "let it pass, and fix it afterwards" - which has also shown
> to be a regular poison pill for discussion and deferring solving real
> problems.
>
>
>
> To the extent the Forum provides a valuable venue to deconflict
> requirements between various browser programs, it would seem avoiding
> conflicts and forced 'no votes', particularly from browsers, would be
> better. Otherwise, I can easily see the Baseline Requirements being less
> valuable as input into Browser requirements or the accepted audit criteria
> if unnecessary or controversial changes are rushed in.
>
>
>
> I can understand the argument against would be that such changes could
> delay much needed fixes that are time sensitive. But we've also seen those
> 'much needed' fixes themselves are the result of inadequate review and last
> minute changes, which yet again argues for a thoughtful deliberation as to
> what will become the common requirement.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the two editorial comments; they are helpful and I will include
> them.
>
>
>
> My position remains the same as it was in the previous thread: if you
> believe you need more time to understand the ballot, you are free to vote
> no.  But people don’t need seven days to analyze an effective date that was
> accidentally omitted.  There have been other similar cases over the last
> few years.
>
>
>
> I intentionally left gaining consensus up to the proposer, and they may do
> so by any means they feel is appropriate.  This may include waiting seven
> days after making complex changes, to give people time to analyze them.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:03 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot: Ballot discussion ends when
> discussion ends, and not before
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <
> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Now that I have a bit more time, I’d like to propose a ballot that we
> discussed with Gerv after the recent CAA voting snafu.  The current bylaws
> require the proposer to predict in advance how long the discussion period
> will be.  We’ve had a few cases where we’ve had to choose between
> withdrawing a ballot and starting over (with a week delay …) and going
> forward with an imperfect ballot.  We should have the time and flexibility
> to get ballot right, even if a flaw is noticed late in the discussion
> period.  I included Gerv’s proposal to sunset abandoned ballots.
>
>
>
> While I was modifying the voting rules, I decided to make it clear that
> the ballot can be modified in response to concerns identified during the
> discussion period.  We’ve always operated that way, so I thought I’d make
> it clear in the bylaws.
>
>
>
> The change is in github here:
>
>
>
> https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...
> timfromdigicert:patch-1
>
>
>
> -(c) A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be
> published for discussion and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot
> needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The discussion
> period then shall take place for at least seven but no more than 14
> calendar days before votes are cast. The proposer of the ballot will
> designate the length of the discussion period, and each ballot shall
> clearly state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for
> both the discussion period and the voting period.
>
> +(c) A representative of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to be
> published for discussion and comment by the membership. Any proposed ballot
> needs two endorsements by other Members in order to proceed. The discussion
> period then shall take place for at least seven calendar days. After seven
> days, wheneverr the proposer feels the ballot is ready for voting, he shall
> repost the ballot, incorporating any changes based on feedback from the
> discussion period. However, if 30 days elapse from the beginning of the
> discussion period without voting having started, the ballot will be
> considered withdrawn. The ballot shall clearly state the start and end
> dates and times (including time zone) for the voting period.
>
>
>
> Comments?  Endorsers?
>
>
>
> There's a typo -> wheneverr should be whenever
>
> There's some unnecessary gendered language, "he shall repost" -> "The
> proposer shall repost"
>
>
>
> That said, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of last minute changes to
> trigger the vote. As captured during the previous discussion, it may make
> more sense to have changes restart discussion to allow adequate review -
> especially of the implications of the change. I think the Ballot 190
> discussions captured a number of ways in which the attempts to solve the
> problem kept introducing new problems, especially if the proposer may be
> misunderstanding the concerns.
>
>
>
> I think the end state should be "Members have at least 7 days to review
> the final ballot and submit feedback"
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171205/9f9ee3d5/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list