[cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 60, Issue 166

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Tue Apr 18 18:38:37 MST 2017


Privileged and Confidential

Again, presenting my own view and not a corporate position:

Following are some approaches we could use to get us back on track.  Please keep in mind that the Bylaws are not defective because they do not contemplate/anticipate every possible scenario - if they did we’d need an entire datacenter to store them.  Sometimes one-off, odd situations happen, and it shouldn’t cripple the organization.

Option 1.  Resubmit the ballot for a revote.  Simultaneously work on an amendment to the Bylaws to (1) address voting errors, AND (2) add a provision to address disputes, conflicts, and disagreements among the members.  Someone suggested that in such a situation, the Chair/Vice-Chair should be able to make the call, and someone else suggested measuring consensus as to how to proceed.  Those are both good ideas, and could be considered (by the Governance WG) for a proposed amendment to the Bylaws.

Option 2.  Alternatively, we could amend the Bylaws as described above first, and then resubmit the ballot for a revote.  This way, if there’s another voting irregularity, we should be prepared to address it.  

Option 3.  Resubmit the ballot for a revote, without amending the Bylaws.  

I think it would be appropriate to have the Chair and Vice-Chair together choose from these options, and then we should move on.




Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com






On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:04 PM, public-request at cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
	public at cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	public-request at cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	public-owner at cabforum.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot
     193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) (Geoff Keating)
  2. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot
     193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) (Jeremy Rowley)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:58:29 -0700
From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple.com>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date
	of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)
Message-ID: <38083FBD-2415-4743-BE71-A5F2631651B8 at apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


> On 18 Apr 2017, at 3:14 pm, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> What is the strained interpretation? Seems logical to me. I also disagree that the energy can be better spent. This is a good exercise and shows that regardless of the ballot outcome, we should fix the confusion in bylaw wording.
> 
> The argument is about the process at this point is more interesting than the results. We can?t maintain discipline about the process if we can?t figure out what the process even is.

If it helps, I think I?ve figured out why different people are interpreting this differently.

A technical person will read ?Public Mail List? as meaning a server, a web site and e-mail relay.  A non-technical person will read it as meaning a list, of people or e-mail addresses.

You can read the whole document with each of these meanings in your head and never once hit a definite contradiction, although it?s clear that different bits of the document were written by people with different ideas about what it meant; compare "The Chair will notify both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List of the approval? in 2.3(i)(A) with "all such separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List? in 5.3.

But ?submitting? something to a server is the meaning of 'submit? that is 'to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision? and allows the server to reject it, while ?submitting? something to a list of people is the other meaning of ?submit?, ?to deliver formally?, and you haven?t delivered it if it didn?t arrive.


So, you?re all right and you?re all wrong, I hope that helped!


A bigger problem we have is that we have no way to resolve this issue.  There has been a vote, and it either passed or it didn?t, and the bylaws are ambiguous on which is the case.  So I think that what we need most of all is a resolution mechanism.  One simple one is to say that the Chair?s ballot count is definitive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/7392a622/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3321 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/7392a622/attachment-0001.bin>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:04:32 +0000
From: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
To: "geoffk at apple.com" <geoffk at apple.com>, "CA/Browser Forum Public
	Discussion	List" <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date
	of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)
Message-ID: <a2d90634324e425999d5e7625efb5226 at EX2.corp.digicert.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+ 1 to the different view points. 



However, I think the ambiguity means the ballot didn?t pass and didn?t fail.  Per 2.3(d) ? ?If the Draft Guidelines Ballot does not pass the Initial Vote, the ballot will stop.?



From: geoffk at apple.com [mailto:geoffk at apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:58 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Eric Mill <eric at konklone.com>; Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16)





On 18 Apr 2017, at 3:14 pm, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:



What is the strained interpretation? Seems logical to me. I also disagree that the energy can be better spent. This is a good exercise and shows that regardless of the ballot outcome, we should fix the confusion in bylaw wording.



The argument is about the process at this point is more interesting than the results. We can?t maintain discipline about the process if we can?t figure out what the process even is.



If it helps, I think I?ve figured out why different people are interpreting this differently.



A technical person will read ?Public Mail List? as meaning a server, a web site and e-mail relay.  A non-technical person will read it as meaning a list, of people or e-mail addresses.



You can read the whole document with each of these meanings in your head and never once hit a definite contradiction, although it?s clear that different bits of the document were written by people with different ideas about what it meant; compare "The Chair will notify both the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List of the approval? in 2.3(i)(A) with "all such separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List? in 5.3.



But ?submitting? something to a server is the meaning of 'submit? that is 'to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision? and allows the server to reject it, while ?submitting? something to a list of people is the other meaning of ?submit?, ?to deliver formally?, and you haven?t delivered it if it didn?t arrive.





So, you?re all right and you?re all wrong, I hope that helped!





A bigger problem we have is that we have no way to resolve this issue.  There has been a vote, and it either passed or it didn?t, and the bylaws are ambiguous on which is the case.  So I think that what we need most of all is a resolution mechanism.  One simple one is to say that the Chair?s ballot count is definitive.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/64018d66/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/64018d66/attachment.bin>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


------------------------------

End of Public Digest, Vol 60, Issue 166
***************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/c5c44992/attachment.html>


More information about the Public mailing list