It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create new versions of the Bylaws. The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc. It looks like Subcommittees have the flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG. If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: Send Public mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi) 2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400 From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> Cc: CABFPub <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Message-ID: <cacvawvbodx1ec0bvxrnx7eik3tgb8efxeqv06j_qyzkt7cz...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available notes. That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like" LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws today. There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists, for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note. That's the point. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks, > including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR > protections. > > > > In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that > would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and > there are publicly available notes. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Public <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer > via Public > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM > *To:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion > List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security > Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/7203cd81/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:29:38 +0000 From: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Cc: CABFPub <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Message-ID: <bn6pr14mb11066d38b44b3bf97d0857d883...@bn6pr14mb1106.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" My ballot that I didn?t get around to writing would have had something like: ?The current Bylaws lack clarity and precision about the functioning of subcommittees. Until such a time as that is corrected, subcommittees created from LWGs shall operate in the same manner as pre-governance reform working groups.? Would that help? -Tim P.S. I asked the Validation WG chair if the Validation Subcommittee would continue using the validation mailing list, and continue to produce agendas and minutes, and he said yes. From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 12:19 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> Cc: Wayne Thayer <[email protected]>; CABFPub <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available notes. That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like" LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws today. There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists, for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note. That's the point. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks, including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR protections. In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and there are publicly available notes. -Tim From: Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CABFPub <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4940 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/fe5fea4f/attachment.p7s> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81 **************************************
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
