In (partial) response to Virginia's concern -- this is an "old style" working group of the whole Forum (to work on an issue), and not a "new style" working group under the Governance WG's definition. (I think we will call these subcommittees or similar in the future).
I'd say let's just go forward with Gerv's draft so we can get going -- I doubt there will be any real controversy once the new WG starts its work. We have actually discussed this a few times. -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 1:49 PM To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group On 05/06/17 21:28, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > If we actually have a working group, we can gather expressions of > interest, perhaps even choose a chair, and the interested parties can > start defining a direction that their work will take them in. > > I'm not sure I understand this. How does a WG promote that - since you > could just as well accomplish the same in the F2F. You can't choose the chair of a WG without having a WG. You can't get people to commit to be in a WG without having a WG. So those people can't then sit down and start work. If having a WG is irrelevant to making progress, why did the last discussion of this topic conclude that we needed one? Why do we have them at all? What I am expecting and hoping for is that Kirk as Forum Chair will, in anticipation of the passing of this ballot, add this WG to the list of meetings on the F2F WG day (Tuesday). Then, people interested in this topic will turn up (or make themselves known to Kirk if they can't be present), and the Chair will appoint one of those people as Chair of the WG, as the Bylaws say he should. The group will then begin to establish the mechanisms by which it will analyse the situation and deliver on its deliverables. If this topic is to be addressed via a WG, this is all useful progress which could not be made nearly as well without a WG existing. If people feel this topic should not be addressed via a WG, they should obviously vote No on the ballot to charter it. (Hopefully with feedback as to how they think it would be better addressed.) Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
