Yes, I understood that, and maybe I just need to get my head around it. It seems weird to me, and very different from our current structure. It’s not what we drew on the whiteboard wherever we were, but maybe it’ll work fine.
-Tim From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:33 PM 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 Just to clarify, there has not been any discussion in the Governance WG about having “subcommittees” under working groups. The way the documents are structured now (and have been for several months) is that: * The Server Certificate WG is created as a new WG under the Forum. Much of the existing Forum work is swept into this WG. * Once Ballot 206 is passed, the currently existing (“legacy”) working groups have a choice. They can terminate (if no one wants to continue that work) or they can continue to operate without a charter for 6 months. If they want to continue beyond that 6 months, they will need to submit a ballot with a charter and get approval at the Forum level. These legacy WGs would be their own individual WGs, and would not be “subcommittees” under any other WG. * Also, once Ballot 206 is passed, brand-spanking new WGs can be created. To do this, those interested in the WG would submit a ballot and charter to the Forum for approval. These would also be WGs in their own right - they would not be connected to any other WG, or be “subcommittees” of another WG. So, 8 months after Ballot 206 passes, we could hypothetically have: * Server Certificate WG (1st WG, approved with Ballot 206/charter, captures much of the Forum’s existing work) * Certificate Policy WG (Legacy group, would need to submit a charter (no ballot) and get approved to continue) * Validation WG (Another Legacy group, would also need to submit a charter (no ballot) and get approved to continue) * Code Signing WG (Brand-new working group, would need to submit a ballot and charter to get approved) * Metaphysical Telepathic Authentication WG (Brand-new working group, would also need to submit a ballot and charter to get approved) 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. Does that help? We think the “Participant” definition issue has already been addressed in the proposed amendment to the IPR policy. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> On Jan 18, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: So I think the question is whether there can be formal “subcommittees” below the Server Certificate Working Group, that would correspond to the existing “Working Groups” which are subgroups of the forum as a whole now. I’ll double-check the language tomorrow, but my understanding is that in the new bylaws, Working Group means something like “Server Certificate” or “Code Signing”, not something like “Network Security (subgroup of Server Certificate)”. It’s probably ok if they can continue to exist at the top level until they get re-chartered into the right positions. We’ve done a great job on making sure there’s a continuity plan for the Server Certificate Working Group, now we just need to cross our eyes and dot our tees and make sure nothing will go wrong with the subgroups … Probably a good topic for Tuesday along with Kirk’s observation that our IPR agreement has a bug with respect to Interested Parties. This entity approves of including Interested Parties as entities subject to the IPR (though it cannot commit it’s parent entity, no matter how hard it desires to do so ☹). -Tim From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:14 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation 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 ✉︎ <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:31:59 -0700 From: Wayne Thayer < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> To: Tim Hollebeek < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID: < <mailto:CAJE6Z6cav=sARZkyvSvp_+=bwt_ffe2n8amrybtbibdl9im...@mail.gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:[email protected]> [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> 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 < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> To: Wayne Thayer < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID: < <mailto:dm5pr14mb128949ac267566f7dbc0efc683...@dm5pr14mb1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
