[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

[Ryan Sleevi]

Kirk, Dimitris,

Could you explain how you imagine this process working? I think it's
presently underspecified, highlighting Gerv's concerns.

Here's just a small sample of realistic problems that would emerge:
1) At what point can such Editorial Changes be proposed? During discussion
or during voting?
2) At what point are objections raised? What happens if votes were based on
text that was Editorial, objections were raised that they're not Editorial,
and in the retrospective analysis of the original language, the votes
change?

Working through a simple analysis of timelines and identifying at what
point X can happen and at what point it can no longer happen would do a
great service in identifying further deficiencies in the proposed language.
I suspect that if we attempt to solve this problem, it will inevitably end
up looking very similar to our voting procedures, since the design of those
are to allow folks ample time to vote and to avoid confusion as to what is
being voted on. Thus, I question the fundamental value.

I appreciate the enthusiasm being applied for what members may see as
'simple' fixes, but as we know with substantive changes in process, these
are hardly that.

Further, I would encourage those proposing the "Editorial Language" to do
so in a separate ballot. I think we'd be reasonably confident to say that
this is not a problem being introduced by this Ballot, therefore, I would
suggest we not attempt to solve it by attaching unnecessarily to this
ballot.

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> +1 – sounds good to me.
>
>
>
> Gerv – are you willing to make this change to your draft ballot?
>
>
>
> *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 8, 2017 3:24 PM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <
> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion
> Period
>
>
>
> Offering a previously stated suggestion.
>
> "Editorial changes" (the definitions 1 and 2 from W3C Process Document
> seem reasonable) must be proposed to the public list and clearly identified
> as such. If any voting member objects and considers such change as "not
> editorial", then the formal ballot process shall take place. if no
> objections are raised, then these editorial changes shall be applied along
> with changes approved via the next upcoming ballot.
>
> Does this make sense?
> Dimitris.
>
> On 8/12/2017 9:14 μμ, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
>
> Maybe we could state that “editorial” changes could be made without
> restarting the discussion period.  “Editorial” could be defined something
> like 1 and 2 below (taken from the W3C Process Document):
>
>
> 6.2.5 Classes of Changes
>
> This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
> specification. The first two classes of change are considered editorial
> changes, the latter two substantive changes.
>
> *1. No changes to text content*
>
> These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid markup.
>
> *2. Corrections that do not affect conformance*
>
> Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as changing
> architectural or interoperability requirements or their implementation.
> Changes which resolve ambiguities in the specification are considered to
> change (by clarification) the implementation requirements and do not fall
> into this class.
>
> Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative code
> examples where the code clearly conflicts with normative requirements,
> clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos
> or grammatical errors where the change does not change implementation
> requirements. If there is any doubt or dissent as to whether requirements
> are changed, such changes do not fall into this class.
>
> *3. Corrections that do not add new features*
>
> These changes *may* affect conformance to the specification. A change
> that affects conformance is one that:
>
> ·       makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents
> become non-conforming according to the new version, or
>
> ·       makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become
> conforming, or
>
> ·       clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
> specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an agent whose
> conformance was once unclear becomes clearly either conforming or
> non-conforming.
>
> *4. New features*
>
> Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595 <(669)%20227-9595>
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> wrote:
>
> Gerv, this started as your ballot, so it's up to you - do you want to
> allow such minor edits without restarting the discussion period, or not?
>
> If yes, you need to put defining / permissive language in the ballot.  I
> won't be comfortable if we have no written permission for edits, but then
> allow them informally later when ballots have errors - it needs to be in
> the ballot.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org <gerv at mozilla.org>]
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:23 PM
> To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period
>
> On 08/12/17 18:17, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
>
> Just putting the question to you in the abstract – do you think we
> should have to restart a seven day discussion just to correct an
> obvious typo?
>
>
> Let us say the answer to that question is "no". Then the obvious next
> question is: "how do you, the proponent of this idea, define 'obvious typo'
> in a way which does not open the door to substantive changes, or changes
> which people would argue about the substantiveness of, and without
> inventing Yet Another Voting/Polling Mechanism"?
>
> Gerv
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Public mailing list
>
> Public at cabforum.org
>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171210/98a797fc/attachment-0003.html>