Hi Gerv, Thank you for your comments. Let me try to respond to each one and perhaps other members of the working group will chime in if I'm not exact in my answers. I've repeated them below for ease of review:
-- Do you mean, each WG should have at least the concept of a non-CA member, and some examples of companies or people who might be in that class, even if none join? >>Yes, what we are saying is that there will likely be CAs as one group, and >>there should be another constituency, be it browsers or ASVs. If none join, >>there's not much point of having a "working" group. * What will be the status of WGs like the Governance Reform Working Group in the new system? Will they be parallel to and at the same level as e.g. the Code Signing Working Group? >>Yes, parallel. -- Are they permitted to change their minds after joining? If so, what's the point of making them state it up front? Or do you just mean that "Like other members, Interested Parties are only part of the Working Groups they explicitly sign up to"? >>Yes, they can change their minds. As you state, the purpose is that they are >>only part of the groups they explicitly sign up for. -- Would it not make more sense to have a "Common" policy or charter which applied to all WGs, which contained these terms? Having to copy them about everywhere leads to lots of potential for errors, version skew etc. If requirements are to be common, they should be voted on at Forum level and included in this document, and the charter of each WG can incorporate "the latest version" by reference. Thus all WGs would be bound by them. >>Good idea, we will discuss that at our next meeting * "The Forum will have the power to create Subcommittees to study issues that come up from time to time." -- Can you give an example of the sort of thing this might cover? >> For example, we recently had a "task force" which was a subset of members to >> help get some things clarified for the greater membership. Will make the other cleanups. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 12:16 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Seeking comments on Governance Change outline Hi Dean, On 17/01/17 20:55, Dean Coclin via Public wrote: > Attached is the outline (pdf) which we are seeking comments, > suggestions, recommendations (and criticism) from members and the > public at large. Comments are due back by Friday, February 17^th 2016. Again, thanks to the group for its hard work. Here are my comments: * "Server Authentication Group" -> "Server Authentication Working Group" for consistency. * "However, the WG should show that there are relying parties, application providers and/or other relevant parties that can participate in the WG." -- Do you mean, each WG should have at least the concept of a non-CA member, and some examples of companies or people who might be in that class, even if none join? * What will be the status of WGs like the Governance Reform Working Group in the new system? Will they be parallel to and at the same level as e.g. the Code Signing Working Group? * "[Interested Parties] must indicate which Working Group they wish to participate in." -- Are they permitted to change their minds after joining? If so, what's the point of making them state it up front? Or do you just mean that "Like other members, Interested Parties are only part of the Working Groups they explicitly sign up to"? * "[Cross-WG requirements] can be reviewed on a Working Group by Working Group basis and inserted into the charter of each new Working Group." -- Would it not make more sense to have a "Common" policy or charter which applied to all WGs, which contained these terms? Having to copy them about everywhere leads to lots of potential for errors, version skew etc. If requirements are to be common, they should be voted on at Forum level and included in this document, and the charter of each WG can incorporate "the latest version" by reference. Thus all WGs would be bound by them. * 2 c), "i.e." should probably be "e.g.". * 2 d) seems to have a missing full stop. * "The Forum will have the power to create Subcommittees to study issues that come up from time to time." -- Can you give an example of the sort of thing this might cover? This all seems to be moving in the right general direction. I look forward to seeing the proposed draft Bylaws :-) Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/zWS27txS7MRTwZRMy161A72wcKtumTclpK8drl1Kp7c=?d=LE11f3h3_6prluq5g4sEuqP79IQdrIM0AnjL61TWvFv6suQtI79-PSXw1-sNNfpfHvTm2FJoFeEO4-iDXb13JqgNGN2C0FrqFFuJPecUfPZYzZZoHL8kypSv4qRI2OcSkZ6-3cEDElfQB-vleoi4gRrOGg5IbK8T6P4A0io4xBpmU-XJ1GFia-Hm1zlmYpcT01NrBfAHan7_YRFJ9Ps0cC0OaXUvtjY3TISpr2tZDSyk2rS70UN7-nLutDQvrXMYwtkHCltNAv1ify168I2Q2PJrDWru9RLz-ILWKTxvI9U3jVCXG7ylPWbBiA8XCfXzTeEYZjBwuXv7z0BEQynb6A3qHYjUjWPYFVlZ2D6qvpgXpI-s5rxN2nnfsHy9Z829r46YmgEIW7WTvQEhKkPplPGoQ5uA8_6JnJg%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
