On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public < [email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan, > > > I am not Ryan, but... Unfortunately, as a native Californian, I am a very non-violent person, and > the Code of Conduct explicitly forbids violence, so can we be in utterly > non-violent agreement about the fact that the Validation WG is already an > SCWG subcommittee? π That will make it clear we have time to discuss > rules about how subcommittees function and come to a consensus about what > the right solution is. > > > I partially agree with you. The bylaws section 5.3.1(e) says in part that "A CWG-created Subcommittee needs to be approved by the CWG itself according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter..." Since there is no approval process defined in the SCWG charter, one could argue that any form of approval is acceptable. However, I don't consider the LWG Chair's declaration that the LWG is converting to a Subcommittee to be a form of approval by the CWG. So I still think it would be best to put this one to a vote. In the meantime, I would like to once again re-iterate that the Validation > Subcommittee will, to the best of its ability, continue functioning as it > historically has. That includes publicly available discussions, agendas, > and meeting notes. We have a lot of very important work we are doing, and > it is important we are able to continue making progress. > > > I completely agree. -Tim > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> > *Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected]>; Kirk Hall < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 β Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > We're in violent agreement, Tim. :) > > > > But there's still an issue to solve. The bylaws don't establish how > subcommittees are run - minutes and lists are two examples. Whether or not > a chair is another. That's the sort of problem that a ballot is needed to > resolve - not the conversion. That's just 5.3.1(d) and (e). > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What the Bylaws actually say is: > > > > β5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any βLegacyβ Working Groups (βLWGβ) 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.β > > > > The Validation Working Group has expressed its intention to become a > Subcommittee at every opportunity. Those who continually seek to deny it > that option are clearly in violation of the Bylaws. > > > > Once again, the Validation Working Group has selected option (a). If we > want a Ballot to confirm that, we can have a ballot, but I will not allow > members to obstruct the LWGβs right to choose option (a), a right the > Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. > > > > -Tim > > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
