On 05/06/17 18:29, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > But you've set yourself up for a process upon which production of report > may take forever, due to stalling tactics and a desire to 'explore other > proposals' before finalizing the report.
And if you have a date-based criteria, a group which for some reason doesn't want the WG to produce a report simply has to delay until the expiry date. And if you argue "well, it'll get rechartered", then it's exactly the same as the version without a date-based end. A date-based end does not solve this problem. > In general, we try to follow our bylaws. We've seen what happens when > WGs are chartered not consistent to our bylaws - the Code Signing WG is > a prime example of this, where an ad-hoc determination to start a WG > with both IP and scope encumbrances. Respectfully, this is not that. > Considering the proposal was broached on a Friday and put forward on a > Monday, Well, no, we've been meaning to charter this working group since the last face to face. To my mind, it's a fairly simple procedural step that we need to go through in order to actually have the discussions about what to do. <sigh> I've revised the ballot to add an expiry date, but with a postponement clause. This meets the letter of the bylaws and should reduce administrivia. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
