Hey Clint, Is it possible to convert that file to a standard format? I'm having trouble opening it
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:30 PM Clint Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I’ve attached below an updated draft charter which addresses the concerns > I raised previously, especially with regards to section 4.2.3. There are > additionally changes seeking to address Tim and Ryan’s comments/responses > below and a few minor updates that seemed warranted as I went through > another comprehensive review of the document. For each area changed, there > is a corresponding comment; if anything is unclear, please let me know and > I’d be happy to address. > > Thank you for your patience and understanding in getting this back to the > group. Have a great evening! > -Clint > > > > On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:57 PM Tim Hollebeek via Public < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> - Automatic cessation of membership >> >> >> - The balloted wording around software update cadences introduces >> some precision/definition issues that would likely prove troublesome >> in and >> of themselves. >> - While some of those issues could be addressed through >> wordsmithing, the entire precept that membership may be automatically >> removed based on various conditions (both for Certificate Consumers >> *and* Issuers) is itself problematic and I think an area rife for >> improvement (both here and in other charters). >> >> REJECT: The language is consistent with the language in the other working >> group charters. Introducing new inconsistencies in this charter would be >> confusing for all involved. If Apple believes these provisions are >> problematic, potential improvements should be discussed an applied across >> all chartered working groups. >> > > I'm not quite sure I understand this rationale, could you explain more. > > Why does this charter need to follow the SCWG/CSWG charter? Who is "all > involved" that would be confused? > > It seems very valuable to learn from mistakes and concerns and address > them, but perhaps I'm overlooking something? > > >> >> - Invalid membership requirements/processes >> >> >> - I think Ryan Sleevi has explained most of this better than I could, >> so I’ll refer to his message instead: >> https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2020-February/014874.html. >> - I looked, but failed to find information as to how mail transfer >> agents consume S/MIME certificates. However, since it’s included in the >> ballot I can only conclude that the proposer has relevant and detailed >> insight into how and why this is a valid categorization for Certificate >> Consumers and had hoped to be pointed to that information so as to >> better >> understand the scope of this proposed CWG. >> >> REJECT: This was discussed extensively during the governance reform >> process, and the current procedures were deemed to be sufficient. This >> charter simply follows those precedents. Indeed, two other chartered >> working groups were successfully bootstrapped already. >> > > I understand one group was the Code Signing Working Group, which perhaps > did not have careful or close review from all Forum members due to the > explicit lack of intent to participate in the venue or fundamental > disagreements about the working group objectives. > > However, I'm not sure, what's the other Chartered Working Group you're > thinking of? The SCWG explicitly did not follow this process, as part of > the Legacy Working Group transition, and so I'm not sure what the other CWG > is that avoided this? > > Also, while I agree that this was discussed extensively, I must > respectfully disagree that the "current procedures were deemed to be > sufficient". The current (proposed) procedures were known to be problematic > in bootstrapping, something we discussed, and something we knew we could > avoid by defining an open and welcoming charter. This WG does not seem to > set out to do this. > > In all fairness, this seems a repeat of the same issues the bedeviled, and > nearly derailed, the Forum in it's first start. The attempt to exclude some > CAs, via narrowly and restrictively scoped membership, nearly resulted in > the implosion of the Forum, as the management@ archives from 2009 show. > Ultimately, it was the Forum's rejection of such exclusionary attempts that > helped grow the membership. In particular, it was DigiCert who some were > trying to prevent from joining the Forum, so it would be unfortunate to > have DigiCert repeat that same process. > > I'm hoping you're open to addressing these issues, but I don't think we > can support the charter without this issue being addressed. > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
