Since I needed an invitation letter to join F2F meeting, so I remeber Dean told
me the meeting agenda is confirmed one week or two weeks before the F2F
meeting. The agenda was copied from Redmond meeting with little modification. I
agree with Ryan' and Peter's suggestion. It is time for Kirk to collet
suggestion to arrange the new meeting agenda and update the Wiki.
As for Redmond's meeting, my topic about changing to browser UI for Subject
DN of EV SSL Certificate has not yet be resolved.
It seems there is no further progress after I and Dimitris file a bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1308755
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500333
As for suggestion to Microsft , it was post by Dimitris, thanks for him.
Because that mail was in my office computer, it is National holiday in Tawian,
If Dimitris read the mail, please tell us the status.
Li-Chun Chen
Chunghwa Telecom
-Original message-
From:Ryan Sleevi via Public<public@cabforum.org>
To:CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List<public@cabforum.org>
Cc:Ryan Sleevi<sle...@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:48:43
Subject: [外部郵件] Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F meeting Research Triangle
Park, NC - March 21-23
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <public@cabforum.org>
wrote:
Kirk,
It looks like Day 2 is mostly copied from the Redmond F2F agenda. I don’t have
an intention of repeating the topics I lead previously unless there are new
things to cover.
Thanks,
Peter
Indeed, I was just about to suggest that for several of the other (non-Peter)
topics, unless there's something new to cover - and ideally, discussed on the
list prior - we shouldn't schedule those items either.
I also note that Day 1 limits the discussion of "Future Thoughts" to 45
minutes, although I would suggest and suspect that this is a line of discussion
that might easily occupy an hour and a half, if not more, as members work
through understanding the various goals of the suggestions, and then try to map
out possible paths towards those goals by articulating concerns and constraints
that they may have.
If I might, borrowing from an "unconference" like approach, might I suggest
that Day 1 gather the "Future Thoughts" as scheduled, and have a (brief)
discussion and presentation of those future thoughts (also as scheduled), but
we make use of time of Day 2 to actually explore and articulate how to get
there. This would allow time for members to socialize and understand the items
raised on Day 1, and then come back on Day 2 with a better sense of concerns
and directions. I suspect this will allow us a much more productive discussion
and figuring out next steps.
Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now, prior to
the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes and allow time
for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several discussion slots on
Day 2 to explore those items identified as either controversial or as shared
interest, so that we can more rapidly make progress. This might make it more
productive then, say, if I were to request several agenda slots for what Google
considers as high importance and future direction.
Another agenda item I might suggest, and I'm happy to be the 'discussion
leader' because of it, is the question about the role and relationship of the
Forum. Judging by the reactions to Ballot 185, and from various questions that
have come in on the questions@ list which have sparked debate, perhaps it's
worth revisiting how different members see the role and scope of the Forum, so
that we can better understand each other's objectives and needs.
There also appears to be one or two agenda items previously discussed, but
missing. One was a retrospective discussion about the SHA-1 deprecation, with
input from various Browsers, to help capture and crystalize the challenges and
to examine some of the lessons learned from the SHA-1 exception process.
Another was more targeted towards the technical members of the Forum, which is
related to workflow management (GitHub, production of PDFs, etc), with the goal
of making it less onerous on Ben to manage that. I realize that the Forum has
historically conducted a 'single track' meeting schedule, there may be
opportunity during the WG day to run that exploration in parallel, if there's
space available. My instinct is that there may be sufficient non-overlap in
members as the Governance discussions, but as the agenda for Day 2 shapes out,
there may be an opportunity there instead.
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.
如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that t
