On 19/01/18 01:32, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote: > *All of the above 5 WGs would be individual, independent, separate > groups and would not be subcommittees, subgroups, ancillaries, or > subordinates of any other group.*
The (current) work of e.g. the Validation WG is clearly a subset of the work of the Server Certificate WG. If it were to be set up as a "top level" WG, that relationship would not be clear, it would need its own bylaws etc., have an independent lifecycle, and all that seems a bit heavyweight. That doesn't mean we need a formal mechanism for sub-Working Groups. We can just form them informally - "This is the Validation sub-committee of the Server Certificate WG. Its calls are at this time - anyone in the Server Certificate WG can join. When they come up with ideas or proposals, they bring them to the full WG for approval." You could do something like that without needing formal Bylaw support, IMO. Perhaps that is the way forward? Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public