Thank you Clint! I have reviewed this draft and I'm happy with it. Assuming that Tim and Ryan feel their concerns have been addressed, I am willing to endorse a new ballot on behalf of Mozilla.
- Wayne On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:07 AM Clint Wilson via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure thing, here’s a Word formatted version :) > > > > On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
