Tim raises a good question below, regarding whether legacy working groups and newly-approved working groups should both be called “working groups.” Maybe we should make a clear distinction between “Legacy Groups,” and “Chartered Working Groups,” or something similar. Thoughts?
There’s also a question about a mechanism to convert “legacy” working groups to “chartered” working groups within 6 months. The process for converting a “legacy” group into a “chartered” group is specified in Section 5.3.4 (see below) of the new Bylaws. The legacy group would need to go through the same process as any other group would to get a charter approved. So the process is already covered. 5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any legacy Working Groups in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of immediately terminating or continuing in effect without change for 6 months following such approval. For a legacy a Working Group to continue beyond such 6 months, it must have a charter approved as described in Section 5.3.1 above, as if it was a new Working Group. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:31:59 -0700 From: Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID: <CAJE6Z6cav=sARZkyvSvp_+=bwt_ffe2n8amrybtbibdl9im...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > > What are we going to do about continuity of existing working groups (old > terminology, not new)? Is it necessary for the Server Certificate Working > Group Charter to say anything about sub-working groups (I wish we hadn't > used the existing term "working group" to mean something new, it is going > to be very confusing). > > Section 5.3.4 states that "legacy" working groups can be terminated immediately or must be rechartered within 6 months. There is no such thing as a "sub-working group" under the new bylaws. I think this means that there is no mechanism for an existing WG like Validation or Network Security to bring a proposal to the Server Certificate WG for discussion and voting? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180116/a613818d/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:14 +0000 From: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> To: Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID: <dm5pr14mb128949ac267566f7dbc0efc683...@dm5pr14mb1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes, that last part is what I?m concerned about. We said they need to be re-chartered within 6 months, but I think we dropped the ball on including a mechanism to do so. -Tim
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
