In my opinion it makes some sense to move forward with a conversion of the Validation WG to a Subcommittee with the existing broad scope and no expiration date.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:21 PM Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> wrote: > I’m taking your comment as saying you will vote in favor of the ballot if > I make that specific change, so I’ll make that change. Otherwise, on this > ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and criticisms > that propose specific alternate language. We have spent two months on > creation of Subcommittees that simply continue the work we have been > doing., and getting nowhere. Time to finish up! > > > > *From:* Wayne Thayer [mailto:wtha...@mozilla.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:43 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > *Cc:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation > and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees > > > > Kirk, > > > > My concern is that the ballot doesn't explicitly state what you (and I > agree) believe is intended here. Someone in the future can look back at the > ballot language we passed with SC9 and interpret it differently. Simply > copying the VWG scope (and deliverables) into the body of the motion would > address this. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:33 PM Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > wrote: > > Wayne – sorry, I didn’t see your message until now. > > > > In my view, “converting” the Validation Working Group to the Validation > Subcommittee under Bylaw 5.3.4 means it has the same scope as it had under > Ballot 143, which established the Validation Working Group. If the scope > is repeated or changed to create the new Subcommittee, then it’s not really > “converted” – it’s no different than simply creating a new Subcommittee > under Bylaw 5.3.1(e) with a stated scope, etc. – right? > > > > On your second point – sure, we can say that only “legacy” WGs of the > Forum expire on Oct. 3 (as the **new** WGs like the SCWG clearly doesn’t > expire). I can make that change in the next draft. > > > > *From:* Wayne Thayer [mailto:wtha...@mozilla.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:35 AM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> > *Cc:* Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation > and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees > > > > > > This ballot doesn't appear to account for any of the scoping proposed or > concerns raised in this thread: > https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-July/013736.html > > > > If the intent here is that conversion of an existing WG binds the new > subcommittee to the original scope of the WG, then that should be > explicitly stated in the ballot. As it stands, I think this ballot creates > two Subcommittees that have no defined scope whatsoever. > > > > Also a nit - the Purpose section begins with the statement that "All > Working Groups of the Forum will expire on October 3, 2018." This should > say all LEGACY Working Groups because the SCWG is not about to expire. > > > > - Wayne > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:07 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public < > public@cabforum.org> wrote: > > Thanks for taking the time to write this, Kirk. I’ll endorse. > > -Tim > > *From:* Public <public-boun...@cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Kirk Hall via > Public > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:52 PM > *To:* CABFPub <public@cabforum.org> > *Subject:* [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec > Working Groups to SCWG Subcommittees > > > > I am proposing the following ballot – *are there two endorsers*? If we > move soon on this, we can get this ballot approved before October 3, and > there will be no lapse for these two Subcommittees. > > > > (*Note*: I considered also converting the Governance Change Working Group > to a Subcommittee, but it doesn’t belong as a Subcommittee of the SCWG, and > our Bylaws do not permit Subcommittees of the Forum itself. Also, Dimitris > and Ben seem not to want to convert the Policy Working Group to a > Subcommittee of the SCWG, so I have not included that.) > > > > *Ballot SC9 – Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working Groups to SCWG > Subcommittees* > > > > *Purpose of Ballot: * > > > > All Working Groups of the Forum will expire on October 3, 2018. Bylaws > Sections 5.3.1(e) and 5.3.4 allow any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in > existence when Bylaws v.1.9 was approved by the Forum to be converted to a > Subcommittee of a Chartered Working Group pursuant to the procedures of > Bylaws Section 5.3.1(e). > > > > The Server Certificate Working Group wishes to convert the existing > Validation Working Group and Network Security Working Group of the Forum > into Subcommittees of the Server Certificate Working Group. > > > > *--- MOTION BEGINS ---* > > > > In accordance with Bylaws 5.3.1(e) and 5.3.4, the Server Certificate > Working Group (SCWG) hereby converts the following Legacy Working Groups of > the CA/Browser Forum (CABF) to Subcommittees of the SCWG, effective upon > approval of this ballot. The current Chairs of the Legacy Working Groups > shall become the initial Chairs of the SCWG Subcommittees. There shall be > no expiry date for either SCWG Subcommittee. > > > > 1. The Validation Working Group of the CABF is converted to the Validation > Subcommittee of the SCWG. > > > > 2. The Network Security Working Group of the CABF is converted to the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG. > > > > *--- MOTION ENDS ---* > > > > The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: > > > > Discussion (7 days) > > Start Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time > > End Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time > > > > Vote for approval (7 days) > > Start Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time > > End Time: 2018-09-xx, 7:00 am Eastern Time > > > > > > *** > > Additional Information > > > > *Ballot 143 – Formalization of Validation Working Group (approved Feb > 2015)* > > > https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/143%20-%20Formalization%20of%20validation%20working%20group > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Nn3HCo1ed6_tK9Z1BR5oxUbqA2Ys76GaBJzLaRu_uCc=?d=G14XipYp51dRpHIPn-RhS0wEmGHpnuAkExJG0pDIRjEEeb1Xszrl48tjZ-jxNK6b2v0wtaYif-XdaZ_vNhTwPdg889CDYUCdAK7jwr1c31LHAXjT15GjQQjvuzoP1OVpRnc9kQBEx_0QHXFXBvRk_5VLG0Gsh7k-2e0ceq6OcU-Dz3Z8hdDhqf0n1XyoKs-0q-FwpomYxgRD8X2A262rSgOAC1TEv9OUBafT2c-7eTRJGdxjALL393ccLqhoCHL2yQhZULYgzcAXgdn5GAJTWIt2ZU786AkkdeXEKEYg24aSi5n5eKr9LQSEIsEVj9ufJLjI07_KzSzcXNOrZRXJt9DCjLWPZNtyRtpAHkBKV-5dOEYoF8dr6Y8W2tKx1TIIjYzuJzOWF8oYU-yxxi4Jfr-veSUiehv158ZABTcJLBfIVUxB1m3aWH41E9sO_fqCJ8nFZ7QB1C43FO2D9GzwYVcSG83-UK1iZcgHFEyFynxsyHsDUg%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cabforum.org%2Fwiki%2F143%2520-%2520Formalization%2520of%2520validation%2520working%2520group> > > > > The CA-Browser Forum formally establishes the Validation Working Group as > an official working group of the CAB Forum, replacing the previous informal > EV working group. The scope of this working group is to address issues > arising under adopted CAB Forum standards related to the validation of > certificate information and the inclusion of information in certificates. > > > > Scope: The Validation Working Group will consider all matters relating to > the validation and inclusion of information in certificates under adopted > CAB Forum guidelines. > > > > Deliverables: The Working Group shall produce one or more documents > offering options to the Forum for validation within the scope defined above. > > > > *Ballot 203 – Formation of Network Security Working Group (approved June > 2017)* > > > https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/203%20-%20Formation%20of%20Network%20Security%20Working%20Group > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Si2ZiH5l54nHfg2HTjEPqjhMmJGrf1z_cv7iWFk6Fgg=?d=G14XipYp51dRpHIPn-RhS0wEmGHpnuAkExJG0pDIRjEEeb1Xszrl48tjZ-jxNK6b2v0wtaYif-XdaZ_vNhTwPdg889CDYUCdAK7jwr1c31LHAXjT15GjQQjvuzoP1OVpRnc9kQBEx_0QHXFXBvRk_5VLG0Gsh7k-2e0ceq6OcU-Dz3Z8hdDhqf0n1XyoKs-0q-FwpomYxgRD8X2A262rSgOAC1TEv9OUBafT2c-7eTRJGdxjALL393ccLqhoCHL2yQhZULYgzcAXgdn5GAJTWIt2ZU786AkkdeXEKEYg24aSi5n5eKr9LQSEIsEVj9ufJLjI07_KzSzcXNOrZRXJt9DCjLWPZNtyRtpAHkBKV-5dOEYoF8dr6Y8W2tKx1TIIjYzuJzOWF8oYU-yxxi4Jfr-veSUiehv158ZABTcJLBfIVUxB1m3aWH41E9sO_fqCJ8nFZ7QB1C43FO2D9GzwYVcSG83-UK1iZcgHFEyFynxsyHsDUg%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cabforum.org%2Fwiki%2F203%2520-%2520Formation%2520of%2520Network%2520Security%2520Working%2520Group> > > > > Scope > > 1. Consider options for revising, replacing or scrapping the Network > Security Guidelines. > > Deliverables > > 1. A report with one or more proposals for the future of the Network > Security Guidelines. > > 2. For proposals involving replacement, details of the availability and > applicability of the proposed alternative, and what modifications if any > would be needed to it in order to make it suitable for use. > > 3. For proposals involving revision, details of the revisions that are > deemed necessary and how the document will be kept current in the future. > > 4. For proposals involving scrapping, an explanation of why this is > preferable to either of the other two options. > > 5. If there are multiple proposals, optionally a recommendation as to > which one to pursue and an associated timeline. > > 6. A form of ballot or ballots to implement any recommendations. > > > > Expiry > > The Working Group shall expire once the deliverables have been completed, > or on 2018-06-19, whichever happens first. The expiry date given above > shall be automatically postponed by 1 year on 2018-05-19 ("postponement > date") and each anniversary of the postponement date thereafter unless > three or more members separately or jointly request on the Public Mail > List, within one month prior to a particular postponement date, that expiry > of this Working Group not be postponed in that instance. > > > > *Bylaws v1.9* > > > > *5.3.1 Formation of Chartered Working Groups* > > (e) CWGs may establish any number of subcommittees within its own Working > Group to address any of such CWG’s business (each, a “Subcommittee”). A > CWG-created Subcommittee needs to be approved by the CWG itself according > to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter, but approval of the > Forum is not necessary. Subcommittees must exist under an approved CWG. > > > > *5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups* > > Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is > approved by the Forum shall have the option of (a) converting to a > Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e), (b) immediately > terminating, or (c) continuing in effect without change for 6 months > following such approval. For an LWG 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > Public@cabforum.org > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public