On 09/02/17 21:49, Dean Coclin wrote: >>> 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.
It seems like the current draft is not that strong (perhaps the Bylaws will be), because it just says that such a group of people should be demonstrated to exist, not that at least one of them should have joined before the WG is viable. > -- 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. OK; I'm sure the Bylaw draft will make this clear. >>> Good idea, we will discuss that at our next meeting Super :-) > > * "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. Er, that's a bit vague. Which task force did you mean? These subcommittees are Forum subcommittees, or WG subcommittees? I assumed the former, which is why I'm asking; I can see a clear use for WG subcommittees. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
