On 6/2/2019 12:38 π.μ., Dean Coclin via Public wrote:
Well I agree with your first comment 😉 “I suspect we'll disagree on this”
This is a good topic for the F2F meeting as it will likely be more
productive to have this discussion there and try to come to some
conclusion.
Dimitris-is this already on the agenda? If not, can we add?
It certainly is. It might need more time though, we can update. We will
discuss the F2F agenda on our scheduled teleconference call on February
21st. Of course, if members want to propose additional topics, they can
check the draft agenda on the wiki and send me any updates they would
like to see.
For what it's worth, I agree with Dean that we should allow Identity in
the scope and prioritize our focus. It was one of my earlier comments
when the document was drafted and it's included as a comment in the
online draft. The risk Ryan describes seems acceptable to me and
something we can handle by adding the appropriate language in the Charter.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
*From:* Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:39 PM
*To:* Dean Coclin <dean.coc...@digicert.com>
*Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>;
Wayne Thayer <wtha...@mozilla.com>
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft SMIME Working Group Charter
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Dean Coclin <dean.coc...@digicert.com
<mailto:dean.coc...@digicert.com>> wrote:
While that’s true, there’s also the risk to that approach in that
the community feels that topic X is not included in the charter
and therefore will not be addressed or feel that it’s not
important a topic to be addressed.
By including it in the initial charter and by specifying the order
of events, that insures it will be covered at some point. The
charter can say simply (with better wording):
“Topics A, B, C and X, Y, Z will be covered in the charter. Topics
A, B, C will be the first ones addressed in the initial release of
the guidelines. Topics X, Y, Z will be addressed in a subsequent
release. The initial guidelines will have to be voted on and
approved prior to moving to topics X, Y, Z.” This avoids the risk
you describe about starting to work on the secondary topics before
the first ones are approved.
This insures the relevant topics expressed by the community are in
scope but that an ordering is preferred and necessary. It also
avoids a problem later on by anyone who doesn’t want to cover
topics X, Y, Z and forces the working group to disband before they
are addressed.
I suspect we'll disagree on this, but what you describe as a bug is
actually a feature.
It defers the debate about topics X, Y, and Z, and how to address
them, and when to address them, to a time later suited, in order to
ensure that focus is executed on A, B, C.
I'm supportive of language that helps assuage folks concerns by
clarifying that it's excluded from scope without a statement about
fitness for purpose, if that is the only reason to include X, Y, Z in
the charter, but I believe there is substantial harm in including it
as you've presented, for the reasons I explained previously.
And while I realize that many members would prefer not to think about
IP issues, including X, Y, and Z in scope mean that, at any time,
participation may touch on IP on those topics, even if they're not
'yet' being tackled. Explicitly excluding from scope, and
rechartering, helps provide meaningful check points for progress.
Just as we talk about how "good" ballots are one that are focused and
narrow to a problem at hand - which the Validation WG has done a
fairly great job at demonstrating - the same applies to charters.
Keeping focus is extremely valuable, and we shouldn't compromise that.
)
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
