> On 24 Apr 2017, at 2:07 pm, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I thought it was concluded that Ballot 194 had failed, but if there's still > ambiguity, we should resolve that post-haste.
There’s definitely ambiguity. However, the Chair has tabulated and announced the results as required by 2.3(d). In one interpretation of the Bylaws he did it wrong, but it is now too late; there is no provision in the Bylaws to challenge the tabulation or even for the Chair himself to correct it once 3 business days have passed, and the bylaws state that the Chair is performing the tabulation on behalf of the entire Forum. The Forum’s tabulation said the ballot passed. So I believe it passed. … > I would hope such a Ballot would provide complete guidance on such matters, > by addressing Ballot 194's status, the "Review Notice", the clarifications on > voting (e.g. sent, submitted, posted, delivered, via shall all be measured by > this means). As this would not affect any of the documents, we could complete > such a vote within 14 days. I agree we should fix the bylaws to reduce ambiguity. > I'm curious whether there are any other concerns that such a Ballot should > try to address so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever with respect to > Ballot 194's status, and which might serve as a model for the future in the > determination of such ambiguity. This is similar to the readoption of our > documents in Ballots 180 - 182, to attempt to resolve such ambiguities. Well, do we want to explicitly state that the Chair’s ruling is final? Or would we like some other resolution mechanism?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
