Why does a subcommittee need this? On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:01 PM Dean Coclin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps rather than “chairs”, they should be called “leaders”. These are > people that lead the discussion, create agendas, minutes, etc. It’s an > informal role, serving as a titular head only. > > > > *From:* Public <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi > via Public > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:56 PM > *To:* Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> > *Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security > Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > I think that's what the past suggestion was, and I think it's a good > suggestion. > > > > There's no process defined in the CWG for establishment, and I think > there's still some confusion among some members about how the new Bylaws > look - because we're not establishing CWGs (which have IP considerations), > but Subcommittees. We don't need chairs for Subcommittees, there's not a > voting process defined for Subcommittees, and it seems there's confusion on > Subcommittees relation to minutes and such. > > > > I think we say the option is these LWGs is to terminate (as LWGs), and > further discussions continue on within the SCWG to resolve - things like > ballots for the SCWG and Subcommittees. > > > > There's no urgency to convert to a subcommittee or continue as a CWG. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:11 PM Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the > Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I > would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG > left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from > collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be > opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten > nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without > responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see > progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues. > It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental > flaws. > > > > Concrete feedback is: > > Delete: "These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and > browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and > operation of CAs computing infrastructures." > > Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable. > > > > Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair." > > Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just > meetings of the CWG with focus. > > > > Delete: "The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more > documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security > standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the > existing NCSSRs." > > Rationale: This is a pretty much a non-scope as worded, but worse, > precludes some of the very activities you want to do. For example, > reforming existing requirements doesn't establish minimums, so is out of > scope. > > > > Obviously, that leaves you with nothing left. Hopefully there's something > concrete you think should remain, and you can suggest improvements there. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and > criticisms that propose specific alternate language that you will support. > 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! > > > > Do you have specific alternate ballot language you want the Members to > consider? If so, please post. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CABFPub < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *Scope: *Revising and improving the Network and Certificate Systems > Security Requirements (NCSSRs). > > > *Out of Scope: *No provision. > > *Deliverables: *The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or > more documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal > security standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to > modify the existing NCSSRs. These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, > auditors and browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the > deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures. The > Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair. > > > > Is this Deliverable correct? Is that scope correct? The previous WG > produced (only after significant prodding) a statement about 'options' - > which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now > about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to > note what is in scope or out of scope. > > > > I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA, > auditors, and browsers". > > > > However, there's other, more fundamental problems. Most notable is that > Subcommittees aren't established to have Chairs - the point of the rework > of the Bylaws was to make it clearer what activities are done and how they > fit, and a SCWG subcommittee is just that - a subgroup of the SCWG. The > other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the > establishment of subcommittees. > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
