Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:50 PM Tim Hollebeek wrote: > Wayne, > > > > My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not > 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. This was > actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that > the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or impede the > functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that obstructing the work > of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of Conduct as a Code of > Conduct violation). As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will probably support any > and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, as long as it doesn’t > impede the important work of the Validation WG. Though the suggestion that > it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs is completely bizarre. > I’ve never been a member of a standards working group or committee that > didn’t, and I’ve been on **WAY** too many of them. Extraordinary claims > require extraordinary evidence. > Can you point to where the Bylaws describe how Subcommittees operate? Can you point to where Ballot 206 describes how subcommittees operate? Can you point to a list during or prior to this discussion that describes how subcommittees operate? The point is that these elements are not defined, anywhere. It sounds like multiple members unsurprisingly arose at different definitions and understandings, some reasonable, some not, and now it's an effort of the SCWG to sort out what the definition "should" be and to adopt a process to memorialize that in a way that isn't "Well, I threatened a Code of Conduct complaint, so I must be right" Here's a simple path forward: - The SCWG has not defined how Subcommittees are formed. One interpretation suggests that means nothing is required - not even to the degree of consensus. Another interpretation suggests that means in the absence of definition, a ballot is required. - The SCWG has not defined how Subcommittees are operated, nor do the Bylaws. A subcommittee is clearly a part of a CWG, but the obligations and expectations of that subcommittee - does it use a public mail list, does it produce minutes, does it permit calls - is not defined. The Bylaws allow CWGs to define that, but the SCWG has not. One interpretation suggests that means that subcommittees can do whatever they want. Another suggests that until the SCWG defines that, it's inadvisable to form subcommittees. The easiest solution is to resolve both of these with ballots, even if other interpretations may have value. The issue(s) with SC9 and SC10 is that they (presently) are missing that second half that the Bylaws indicate the SCWG's charter should address, but the current SCWG's charter does not, nor do the Bylaws. In the absence of that, or a change in the charter, simply addressing these via SC9/SC10 to clarify what will happen and how it will happen will resolve (temporarily) the fundamental issue, and then subsequent work can be done to clarify for the SCWG going forward how Subcommittees will operate. ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Hmm. Thanks for pointing out my error about 5.3.4. Let’s all vote in favor of SC9 and be done with it. -Tim From: Wayne Thayer Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:11 PM To: Tim Hollebeek Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List ; Ryan Sleevi Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:50 PM Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: Wayne, My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. 5.3.4 says "...converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e).", so I don't understand how you can argue that 5.3.1(e) does not apply to a 5.3.4 conversion. This was actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or impede the functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that obstructing the work of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of Conduct as a Code of Conduct violation). As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will probably support any and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, as long as it doesn’t impede the important work of the Validation WG. Though the suggestion that it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs is completely bizarre. I’ve never been a member of a standards working group or committee that didn’t, and I’ve been on *WAY* too many of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We are in peaceful agreement here. I suspect there are vast differences of opinion on what a Subcommittee actually is, ranging from "that thing we used to call a Working Group" to "some members who want to informally work together on a project". I will note that my recollection is that you were on both the VWG call before July 3rd when the proposal to exercise option (a) was discussed, and the VWG call immediately after July 3rd when the proposal to choose option (a) was discussed again, and didn’t object to that course of action at that time. It’s not just a declaration of the Chair, it was the unanimous consensus of the WG, twice discussed. Correct, and I am not objecting to the VWG making the declaration. If I am objecting to anything now, it's that the Bylaws say that the SCWG must somehow "approve" the formation of a Subcommittee. I actually agree that the process for new Subcommittees (like the Network Security Subcommittee) leaves a lot to be desired, and should be improved by a ballot to improve the clarity of the Bylaws and/or SCWG charter with respect to creation of new Subcommittees. However I agree with Virginia that the SCWG has the right to create subcommittees. In the absence of explicit rules in the charter, the SCWG ballot rules seems to be the right way to create new SCWG Subcommittees. Members are free to vote as they chose on such ballots. But they are not free to obstruct the business of the Forum on procedural grounds that are unsupported by the Bylaws, and they are not free to deny members or working groups the rights and options they have that are clearly expressed in the Bylaws. Sounds like we are in agreement that ballot SC9 should proceed. I will file Code of Conduct complaints if I have to, but would prefer not to. -Tim From: Wayne Thayer mailto:wtha...@mozilla.com> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:21 PM To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List mailto:public@cabforum.org> > Cc: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > 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? 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 on
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:50 PM Tim Hollebeek wrote: > Wayne, > > > > My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not > 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. > 5.3.4 says "...converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e).", so I don't understand how you can argue that 5.3.1(e) does not apply to a 5.3.4 conversion. This was actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was > intended that the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or > impede the functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that > obstructing the work of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of > Conduct as a Code of Conduct violation). As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will > probably support any and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, > as long as it doesn’t impede the important work of the Validation WG. > Though the suggestion that it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs > is completely bizarre. I’ve never been a member of a standards working > group or committee that didn’t, and I’ve been on **WAY** too many of > them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > > > We are in peaceful agreement here. I suspect there are vast differences of opinion on what a Subcommittee actually is, ranging from "that thing we used to call a Working Group" to "some members who want to informally work together on a project". I will note that my recollection is that you were on both the VWG call > before July 3rd when the proposal to exercise option (a) was discussed, > and the VWG call immediately after July 3rd when the proposal to choose > option (a) was discussed again, and didn’t object to that course of action > at that time. It’s not just a declaration of the Chair, it was the > unanimous consensus of the WG, twice discussed. > > > Correct, and I am not objecting to the VWG making the declaration. If I am objecting to anything now, it's that the Bylaws say that the SCWG must somehow "approve" the formation of a Subcommittee. > > > I actually agree that the process for new Subcommittees (like the Network > Security Subcommittee) leaves a lot to be desired, and should be improved > by a ballot to improve the clarity of the Bylaws and/or SCWG charter with > respect to creation of new Subcommittees. However I agree with Virginia > that the SCWG has the right to create subcommittees. In the absence of > explicit rules in the charter, the SCWG ballot rules seems to be the right > way to create new SCWG Subcommittees. Members are free to vote as they > chose on such ballots. But they are not free to obstruct the business of > the Forum on procedural grounds that are unsupported by the Bylaws, and > they are not free to deny members or working groups the rights and options > they have that are clearly expressed in the Bylaws. > > > Sounds like we are in agreement that ballot SC9 should proceed. > > > I will file Code of Conduct complaints if I have to, but would prefer not > to. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Wayne Thayer > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 3:21 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek ; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List > *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public < > public@cabforum.org> 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? 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 disc
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Wayne, My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. This was actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or impede the functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that obstructing the work of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of Conduct as a Code of Conduct violation). As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will probably support any and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, as long as it doesn’t impede the important work of the Validation WG. Though the suggestion that it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs is completely bizarre. I’ve never been a member of a standards working group or committee that didn’t, and I’ve been on *WAY* too many of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I will note that my recollection is that you were on both the VWG call before July 3rd when the proposal to exercise option (a) was discussed, and the VWG call immediately after July 3rd when the proposal to choose option (a) was discussed again, and didn’t object to that course of action at that time. It’s not just a declaration of the Chair, it was the unanimous consensus of the WG, twice discussed. I actually agree that the process for new Subcommittees (like the Network Security Subcommittee) leaves a lot to be desired, and should be improved by a ballot to improve the clarity of the Bylaws and/or SCWG charter with respect to creation of new Subcommittees. However I agree with Virginia that the SCWG has the right to create subcommittees. In the absence of explicit rules in the charter, the SCWG ballot rules seems to be the right way to create new SCWG Subcommittees. Members are free to vote as they chose on such ballots. But they are not free to obstruct the business of the Forum on procedural grounds that are unsupported by the Bylaws, and they are not free to deny members or working groups the rights and options they have that are clearly expressed in the Bylaws. I will file Code of Conduct complaints if I have to, but would prefer not to. -Tim From: Wayne Thayer Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:21 PM To: Tim Hollebeek ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Cc: Ryan Sleevi Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > 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? 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 mailto:sle...@google.com> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > Cc: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >; Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – 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 mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: What the Bylaws actually say is: “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of (a) converting to a Subcom
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public < public@cabforum.org> 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? 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 > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek > *Cc:* CABFPub ; Kirk Hall < > kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – 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 > wrote: > > What the Bylaws actually say is: > > > > “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) 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.” > > > > 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 LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the > Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. > > > > -Tim > > > > ___ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Ryan, 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? 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. 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. -Tim From: Ryan Sleevi Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM To: Tim Hollebeek Cc: CABFPub ; Kirk Hall Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – 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 mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: What the Bylaws actually say is: “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) 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.” 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 LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. -Tim From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:22 PM To: Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> >; CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Kirk, You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize where we stand: Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that they will cease to be LWGs. While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to be done using the process defined by the SCWG. The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of effort in to do it right. As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne agreed." There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the Chair brought to resolve. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote: Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name “Subcommittee”
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – 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 wrote: > What the Bylaws actually say is: > > > > “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) 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.” > > > > 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 LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the > Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Public *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi > via Public > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:22 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall ; CABFPub < > public@cabforum.org> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > Kirk, > > > > You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will > incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple > threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize > where we stand: > > > > Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that > they will cease to be LWGs. > > While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to > be done using the process defined by the SCWG. > > The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. > > If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not > specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and > the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the > Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. > > > > If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it > isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the > feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, > such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, > allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but > that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of > effort in to do it right. > > > > As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for > months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw > 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe > the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne > agreed." > > > > There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and > that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a > ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the > Chair brought to resolve. > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public > wrote: > > Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we > allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early > discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. > I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using > the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed > Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it > clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups > would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. > There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance > Change participants. > > > > I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define > Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on > that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation > and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after Octo
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out every time it’s come up, there’s no support in the Bylaws for these additional obstacles to the Validation Working Group’s clearly expressed choice of option (a). -Tim From: Public On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:37 PM To: Kirk Hall Cc: CABFPub Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG That's a fairly broad misrepresentation. It hasn't been stalemated - it's that someone who said they'd work on it has not made any apparent effort to put forward. Since that conversation in July, in which members agreed upon the problem statement and proposed path forward, no actual concrete proposal was made. Now we see a concrete proposal, with issues, and it seems you have no interest in resolving those issues. Perhaps if you'd put forth a concrete proposal 2 months ago, it wouldn't feel like a stalemate? In any event, it's not correct there's a stalemate. There's been relatively good agreement on the problem, and it's just that the proposed solution - which has only come forward in the past few days after relatively limited discussion - is significantly flawed for the problem. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:27 PM Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > wrote: This discussion is no longer productive – we have been stalemated for two months or so, and I don’t think most members agree with your approach. It would probably be best for just to just vote no on the ballots, but *also* volunteer to work with Ben to amend the Bylaws in whatever way you think is needed. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com <mailto:sle...@google.com> ] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:22 AM To: Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> >; CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Kirk, You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize where we stand: Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that they will cease to be LWGs. While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to be done using the process defined by the SCWG. The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of effort in to do it right. As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne agreed." There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the Chair brought to resolve. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote: Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance Change participants. I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F mee
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
What the Bylaws actually say is: “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) 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.” 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 LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. -Tim From: Public On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:22 PM To: Kirk Hall ; CABFPub Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Kirk, You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize where we stand: Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that they will cease to be LWGs. While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to be done using the process defined by the SCWG. The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of effort in to do it right. As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne agreed." There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the Chair brought to resolve. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote: Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance Change participants. I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into account the comments already received. From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr <mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr> ] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM To: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List mailto:public@cabforum.org> >; Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences. * https://cabforu
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
That's a fairly broad misrepresentation. It hasn't been stalemated - it's that someone who said they'd work on it has not made any apparent effort to put forward. Since that conversation in July, in which members agreed upon the problem statement and proposed path forward, no actual concrete proposal was made. Now we see a concrete proposal, with issues, and it seems you have no interest in resolving those issues. Perhaps if you'd put forth a concrete proposal 2 months ago, it wouldn't feel like a stalemate? In any event, it's not correct there's a stalemate. There's been relatively good agreement on the problem, and it's just that the proposed solution - which has only come forward in the past few days after relatively limited discussion - is significantly flawed for the problem. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:27 PM Kirk Hall wrote: > This discussion is no longer productive – we have been stalemated for two > months or so, and I don’t think most members agree with your approach. It > would probably be best for just to just vote no on the ballots, but * > *also** volunteer to work with Ben to amend the Bylaws in whatever way > you think is needed. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 10:22 AM > *To:* Kirk Hall ; CABFPub < > public@cabforum.org> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > Kirk, > > > > You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will > incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple > threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize > where we stand: > > > > Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that > they will cease to be LWGs. > > While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to > be done using the process defined by the SCWG. > > The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. > > If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not > specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and > the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the > Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. > > > > If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it > isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the > feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, > such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, > allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but > that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of > effort in to do it right. > > > > As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for > months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw > 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe > the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne > agreed." > > > > There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and > that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a > ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the > Chair brought to resolve. > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public > wrote: > > Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we > allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early > discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. > I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using > the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed > Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it > clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups > would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. > There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance > Change participants. > > > > I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define > Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on > that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation > and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 > (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting > next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. > > > > I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into > account the comments already received. > > > > *From:* Dimitris Zacharop
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
This discussion is no longer productive – we have been stalemated for two months or so, and I don’t think most members agree with your approach. It would probably be best for just to just vote no on the ballots, but *also* volunteer to work with Ben to amend the Bylaws in whatever way you think is needed. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:22 AM To: Kirk Hall ; CABFPub Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG Kirk, You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize where we stand: Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that they will cease to be LWGs. While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to be done using the process defined by the SCWG. The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of effort in to do it right. As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne agreed." There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the Chair brought to resolve. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance Change participants. I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into account the comments already received. From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr<mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr>] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM To: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List mailto:public@cabforum.org>>; Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences. * https://cabforum.org/2018/07/12/2018-07-12-scwg-minutes/ where the ambiguity on how to form subcommittees was first raised * https://cabforum.org/2018/07/26/2018-07-26-server-certificate-working-group-minutes/ where the members expressed their opinion (via doodle poll) and the majority chose to resolve this ambiguity by requiring ballots for the formation of subcommittees in the SCWG. IMO, members are in favor of ballots to resolve issues like this. The definition of a subcommittee is broad enough and described in 5.3.1(e) "to address any of such CWG's business". It is very clear to me that both proposed subcommittees (validation and NetSec) are within the SCWG's scope. I thought we had agreed that until the SCWG charter is amended (t
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Kirk, You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize where we stand: Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that they will cease to be LWGs. While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to be done using the process defined by the SCWG. The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of effort in to do it right. As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne agreed." There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the Chair brought to resolve. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we > allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early > discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. > I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using > the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed > Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it > clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups > would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. > There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance > Change participants. > > > > I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define > Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on > that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation > and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 > (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting > next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. > > > > I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into > account the comments already received. > > > > *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM > *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion > List ; Kirk Hall > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of > previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences. > >- https://cabforum.org/2018/07/12/2018-07-12-scwg-minutes/ where the >ambiguity on how to form subcommittees was first raised >- > > https://cabforum.org/2018/07/26/2018-07-26-server-certificate-working-group-minutes/ >where the members expressed their opinion (via doodle poll) and the >majority chose to resolve this ambiguity by requiring ballots for the >formation of subcommittees in the SCWG. > > IMO, members are in favor of ballots to resolve issues like this. The > definition of a subcommittee is broad enough and described in 5.3.1(e) "to > address any of such CWG's business". It is very clear to me that both > proposed subcommittees (validation and NetSec) are within the SCWG's scope. > > I thought we had agreed that until the SCWG charter is amended (to include > language around subcommittees, election of officers and other issues that > were discussed in previous calls), we would proceed with using ballots as > the agreed-upon decision making process. I understand that Kirk's proposed > ballots (as a process) are aligned with this decision. The content of the > ballots (whether or not we will name "chairs", etc for subcommittees) is > debatable and under discussion. > > As a general co
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance Change participants. I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into account the comments already received. From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM To: Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List ; Kirk Hall Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences. * https://cabforum.org/2018/07/12/2018-07-12-scwg-minutes/ where the ambiguity on how to form subcommittees was first raised * https://cabforum.org/2018/07/26/2018-07-26-server-certificate-working-group-minutes/ where the members expressed their opinion (via doodle poll) and the majority chose to resolve this ambiguity by requiring ballots for the formation of subcommittees in the SCWG. IMO, members are in favor of ballots to resolve issues like this. The definition of a subcommittee is broad enough and described in 5.3.1(e) "to address any of such CWG's business". It is very clear to me that both proposed subcommittees (validation and NetSec) are within the SCWG's scope. I thought we had agreed that until the SCWG charter is amended (to include language around subcommittees, election of officers and other issues that were discussed in previous calls), we would proceed with using ballots as the agreed-upon decision making process. I understand that Kirk's proposed ballots (as a process) are aligned with this decision. The content of the ballots (whether or not we will name "chairs", etc for subcommittees) is debatable and under discussion. As a general comment, I would like to note that the majority of Contributions were taking place during "Legacy Working Groups" with the previous governance. These "officially declared" teams had great momentum, produced a lot of improvements to the Forum's Guidelines, met regularly and were coordinated by one or two people that facilitated the discussions and provided the necessary logistics (calendar scheduling, agendas, minutes and so on). I can't imagine that the Governance change intended to make things so hard to form these currently-called "subcommittees". In case of doubt, ballots were always a good way forward, unless they propose something that is clearly against the Bylaws. Dimitris. On 14/9/2018 3:43 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:39 PM Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> wrote: Thanks for the list, Wayne. Responses inline. Remember, a Subcommittee has no real power, it’s just a place where members interested in a subject who want to be involved in drafting proposals for the whole SCWG can work together – we have 10+ years of successful experience with this approach, and are just continuing it at the SCWG level. [Wayne] To respond to Kirk's question about subjects that need to be better defined, here is a start: * Do Subcommittees have Chairs and if so how are they appointed? [KH] Yes, for the same reason we had Chairs for old-style Working Groups of the Forum. There is no change here (BTW, our Bylaws didn’t include rules for old WG Chairs either – somehow it all worked out). Dean has correctly listed what a Chair does. This answer doesn't suffice, because our new Bylaws do change things substantially, and the reasons for the old structure of WGs doesn't just naturally change to SCWGs. * How are Subcommittees chartered? (are they chartered?) [KH] Same as in the past when we created old-style WGs of the Forum – by ballots, in this case SCWG ballots. No change here. This is half correct, but misses the point of the question. The SCWG is responsible for defining how Subcommittees are created, per our Bylaws - and it has not.
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
I can't read your mind as to what you want - but I can tell you the problems with what you're presenting and why they're fundamentally problematic. We don't need a chair, and I think that unless you're specifically invested in resolving this, perhaps you shouldn't be proposing a ballot for it. I've tried to explain why what you're proposing is problematic to the point of opposing - I'd like to try to find something that's viable to support, but that requires your own help in finding a solution. It's not at all productive to suggest you won't take any part of that. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:38 PM Kirk Hall wrote: > Ryan – that’s not terribly useful if it leaves us with “nothing left”. > > > > Can you please present a draft ballot to establish a NetSec Subcommittee > that you think is correct? That’s really the only thing that will be > useful. > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 3:48 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall > *Cc:* CABFPub > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > 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 > 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:sle...@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall ; CABFPub < > public@cabforum.org> > *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 > 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". &g
Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
Ryan – that’s not terribly useful if it leaves us with “nothing left”. Can you please present a draft ballot to establish a NetSec Subcommittee that you think is correct? That’s really the only thing that will be useful. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 3:48 PM To: Kirk Hall Cc: CABFPub Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG 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 mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> 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:sle...@google.com<mailto:sle...@google.com>] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM To: Kirk Hall mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>>; CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org>> 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 mailto:public@cabforum.org>> 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 Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
