> On Feb 26, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Kirk, > > It looks like Day 2 is mostly copied from the Redmond F2F agenda. I don’t > have an intention of repeating the topics I lead previously unless there are > new things to cover. > > Thanks, > Peter > > Indeed, I was just about to suggest that for several of the other (non-Peter) > topics, unless there's something new to cover - and ideally, discussed on the > list prior - we shouldn't schedule those items either. > > I also note that Day 1 limits the discussion of "Future Thoughts" to 45 > minutes, although I would suggest and suspect that this is a line of > discussion that might easily occupy an hour and a half, if not more, as > members work through understanding the various goals of the suggestions, and > then try to map out possible paths towards those goals by articulating > concerns and constraints that they may have.
Based on prior meetings I think we should also expand the trust store (browser) portion of the agenda. > If I might, borrowing from an "unconference" like approach, might I suggest > that Day 1 gather the "Future Thoughts" as scheduled, and have a (brief) > discussion and presentation of those future thoughts (also as scheduled), but > we make use of time of Day 2 to actually explore and articulate how to get > there. This would allow time for members to socialize and understand the > items raised on Day 1, and then come back on Day 2 with a better sense of > concerns and directions. I suspect this will allow us a much more productive > discussion and figuring out next steps. Yes, I think that this makes sense. Maybe the post-SHA2 stuff can move to a possible topic for future thoughts. I don’t know that we need 45 minutes allocated to just that. > Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now, prior > to the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes and allow > time for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several discussion > slots on Day 2 to explore those items identified as either controversial or > as shared interest, so that we can more rapidly make progress. This might > make it more productive then, say, if I were to request several agenda slots > for what Google considers as high importance and future direction. > > Another agenda item I might suggest, and I'm happy to be the 'discussion > leader' because of it, is the question about the role and relationship of the > Forum. Judging by the reactions to Ballot 185, and from various questions > that have come in on the questions@ list which have sparked debate, perhaps > it's worth revisiting how different members see the role and scope of the > Forum, so that we can better understand each other's objectives and needs. I think this sounds like a good idea, but would expand it to be role of the Forum and role of WebPKI (assuming that the Forum is the venue that defines WebPKI). > There also appears to be one or two agenda items previously discussed, but > missing. One was a retrospective discussion about the SHA-1 deprecation, with > input from various Browsers, to help capture and crystalize the challenges > and to examine some of the lessons learned from the SHA-1 exception process. > Another was more targeted towards the technical members of the Forum, which > is related to workflow management (GitHub, production of PDFs, etc), with the > goal of making it less onerous on Ben to manage that. I realize that the > Forum has historically conducted a 'single track' meeting schedule, there may > be opportunity during the WG day to run that exploration in parallel, if > there's space available. My instinct is that there may be sufficient > non-overlap in members as the Governance discussions, but as the agenda for > Day 2 shapes out, there may be an opportunity there instead. I think we can easily multi-track the WG day. For example maybe run the tools discussion in parallel with some of the policy WG time. Thanks, Peter
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
