[cabfpub] Audit Period ballot draft

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 28/03/17 15:35, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > I think "Audit periods are required to be continuous in coverage from
> > audit to audit, and of maximum length 1 year." ends up getting into
> > normatively specifying, rather than simply defining, and thus may be
> > appropriate to remove from the definition, and let Section 8.1 define
> > what an _acceptable_ audit period is
> >
> > Does that work for you?
>
> Well, it's repeating stuff normatively defined elsewhere. I guess I
> wanted to include it because it helps make it clear what we are talking
> about.
>
> Could we go with something like:
>
> "Audit periods are required to be continuous in coverage from audit to
> audit (as specified in section X.X), and of maximum length 1 year (as
> specified in section Y.Y)."
>

I'm still a little nervous about that approach within a "definition". I
suppose it's a philosophical question - whether it's a necessary and
sufficient condition to enumerate that in the definition, or whether it's
suitable to let the restrictions on that definition be defined elsewhere.

I realize it's repeating stuff normatively being defined elsewhere.
However, by introducing it, we run the risk of confusion that any other
normatively specified requirements (such as needing to be a qualified
auditor) may not apply. If you look through the other definitions, they
tend to avoid normatively specifying their constraints on usage normatively
specified elsewhere.

I think it should be sufficient to leave "Audit Period" as reflecting a
Period of Time audit period, and leave the continuous coverage and maximum
length to Section 8.1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170328/3afa4434/attachment-0003.html>