For the record, I’m in favor of making it explicitly clear that the scope
remains the same.
If you’re making changes, feel free to also add Wayne as Validation WG Vice
Chair, since he already runs the meetings for me when I’m traveling.
-Tim
From: Kirk Hall
Sent: Thursday,
In my opinion it makes some sense to move forward with a conversion of the
Validation WG to a Subcommittee with the existing broad scope and no
expiration date.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:21 PM Kirk Hall
wrote:
> I’m taking your comment as saying you will vote in favor of the ballot if
> I make
I’m taking your comment as saying you will vote in favor of the ballot if I
make that specific change, so I’ll make that change. Otherwise, on this ballot
and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and criticisms that
propose specific alternate language. We have spent two months on
Kirk,
My concern is that the ballot doesn't explicitly state what you (and I
agree) believe is intended here. Someone in the future can look back at the
ballot language we passed with SC9 and interpret it differently. Simply
copying the VWG scope (and deliverables) into the body of the motion
Wayne – sorry, I didn’t see your message until now.
In my view, “converting” the Validation Working Group to the Validation
Subcommittee under Bylaw 5.3.4 means it has the same scope as it had under
Ballot 143, which established the Validation Working Group. If the scope is
repeated or
This ballot doesn't appear to account for any of the scoping proposed or
concerns raised in this thread:
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-July/013736.html
If the intent here is that conversion of an existing WG binds the new
subcommittee to the original scope of the WG, then that should
Thanks for taking the time to write this, Kirk. I'll endorse.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:52 PM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot SC9 - Conversion of Validation and NetSec Working
Groups to SCWG Subcommittees
I am proposing
I am proposing the following ballot – are there two endorsers? If we move soon
on this, we can get this ballot approved before October 3, and there will be no
lapse for these two Subcommittees.
(Note: I considered also converting the Governance Change Working Group to a
Subcommittee, but it
