The original intent of the bylaws stating that people other than members needed
a chair invitation to attend F2F meetings was, as you state, to insure the
meeting size didn't get out of control lest we need an auditorium for the
meetings. The WG meetings are a part of the F2F. I think it's clear that
anyone other than a member cannot attend w/o an invitation. Having said that,
according to the wiki, we are at 34 signed up for the meeting, hence there is
capacity for additional people (assuming there isn't a rush of sign ups the
last week). I would encourage members that are attending to insure they are on
the wiki list by next week.
Regarding the all day validation group meeting, I think that is fine, given
that they have some critical items to discuss. Would it be possible to also
hold the Governance meeting the same day? I don't think many of the Governance
people are in the Validation group and hence we can be more efficient by doing
those two on Tuesday. You could then do a policy and net sec working group on
Weds. Just a suggestion.
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:50 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings
I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon, VA on
Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea - but we will have to push other WG meetings to
later, maybe Wednesday morning. Does anyone object to this plan?
On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested Parties at
the special VWG meeting - I have pasted in the relevant part of Bylaw 3.2
below. If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I would have said "IPs can
only come to the full Forum meetings at the invitation of the Chair, but they
can come to Working Group meetings (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings)
without an invitation from the Chair - it's at their option."
That's what I thought sub (a) meant by "becoming involved" in Working Groups,
whereas I believed sub (c) only applies to participation in "Forum
Teleconferences and Forum Meetings" - which I thought meant the meetings of the
full Forum itself. As I recall, we didn't want the full Forum meetings to grow
to 100 people or more, perhaps with many more Interested Parties in attendance
than CAs and browsers - that seemed unmanageable from a logistics standpoint.
Hence the need for a little gatekeeping and specific invitations.
Here is the language from the Bylaws:
Interested Parties may participate in Forum activities in the following ways:
(a) By becoming involved in Working Groups,
(b) By posting to the Public Mail List, and
(c) By participating in those portions of Forum Teleconferences and Forum
which they are invited by the Forum Chair relating to their areas of special
the subject of their Working Group participation.
In any case, I will happily "invite" any Interested Party who wants to be
involved in the VWG meeting on March 6, if necessary.
Or would it be better if we permanently adopt my interpretation above - that no
invitation from the Chair is needed for Interested Parties to attend WG
meetings at their own option?
Public mailing list