<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>My experience is the reverse. IETF and groups with tight charters get bogged down in constant discussions about charter revisions. CABF has recently fallen into the same trap and I don’t think it is a change for the better. There are other SDOs I participate in where groups have operated for 10+ years with the same charter, with no downsides other than the fact that they spend their time discussing and working on the relevant issues instead of re-chartering every time a new topic comes up.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 6, 2019 12:57 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Dean Coclin <dean.coclin@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft SMIME Working Group Charter<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:41 PM Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>There are many SDOs that I participate in that are able to manage their priorities effectively without hardcoding them into a charter. In fact, it’s more common than not. In my experience, SDOs that require a re-charter every time they want to discuss a new topic is indeed very disruptive and high overhead.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I've tried to provide very detailed answers to support the position I'm advocating. Could you discuss more what parts you believe are disruptive and high overhead? Is it because there's disagreement on embracing the topic and/or disagreement on the appropriateness of the timing? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>While there are many SDOs, I will highlight that the SDOs that have been most successful for our line of work - that is, groups such as IETF and W3C - have fairly consistency and explicitly required 'tight' charters with explicit deliverables, as a way of measuring and ensuring progress. Groups that have tended to have very broad charters - which include ETSI and OASIS - tend to get extremely mired down in debates, much like the one we're having now, rather than focusing on the concrete deliverables.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>