<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I probably got confused by processing all the previous discussions,
during the F2F, teleconferences and the recent discussion on the
CA/B Forum plenary public list.<br>
<br>
Leaving the EV Guidelines change aside, which you are absolutely
correct and I didn't consider it properly, the rationale of making
this a Forum-ballot is because the procedures for updating the
Guidelines affect all Working Groups. The existing Server
Certificate WG Charter doesn't say anything about how the ballots
take place because this is described in the Bylaws. Passing a Forum
Ballot with an accepted practice would affect all Working Groups and
therefore we would not need to pass the same ballot for each Working
Group. Please note the Motion language which starts with "The Chair
or Vice-Chair of a CWG..."<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This language does not work at a Forum level, because it implicitly assumes a document structure to Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance Guidelines, except those are determined at the CWG level. If that's your goal, then it emphasizes precisely why it needs to be in the Bylaws. If that's not your goal, that emphasizes precisely why it should be up to CWGs to decide when adopting a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
I did not propose updating the Bylaws because the majority of
Members wanted to have more substantial changes collected for Bylaws
updates because of the extra revisions (though legal and other
departments). You also supported that we should not make small
changes to Bylaws very frequently. I tried to capture that in this
ballot which is why it is not a Bylaws update but a "Forum approved"
practice, which already happens today. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That doesn't mean it's OK to /avoid/ changing the Bylaws; that means it's better to *batch* the change. Or, you know, propose the change anyways and see how/if folks accept it.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
There is no contravention of the Bylaws as far as this procedure is
concerned. The Bylaws are silent about these changes. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Absolutely not. These are currently part of a CWGs Final Guideline / Final Maintenance Guideline, which have a defined process for adoption and review of all changes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>If you
consider that this proposed procedure violates the Bylaws, then you
are practically saying that all existing Guidelines published on our
web site are invalid. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The entire point should be to reduce ambiguity and to provide the appropriate guidance. The only way to reduce that ambiguity is to ensure it's captured within the Bylaws. While this may "seem" like a minor point, the entire objective is to avoid a situation where "The bylaws say X", then a ballot comes about that says "but we meant Y".</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
If members feel that this needs to be an SCWG ballot, I'd gladly
move it to the SCWG public list. If members feel this should be a
Forum ballot, for the reasons mentioned above, I will revise the
ballot and remove the changes to the EV Guidelines, as these would
have to be performed at the SCWG. I therefore welcome some feedback
from other members as well.<br>
<br>
I also feel a bit offended by your expression that I am "committed
to avoiding changes to the Bylaws". I would very much like to make
this a Bylaws update but I respect the majority's opinion not to
make small changes to Bylaws.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's unclear why offense was received, but it was certainly not intended. You made it clear in your earlier message that you believe this should be in the Bylaws and you are intentionally not placing it in the Bylaws. That seems a very clear, intentional choice, especially in light of past discussion why it should be in the Bylaws, not do it.</div><div><br></div><div>In our past conversations, I tried to helpfully guide you to solutions that would comply, but it seems those are misremembered or misunderstood.</div><div>1) Change the Bylaws at the Forum level to allow CWGs to designate informative sections of the FG/FMG which can be modified by the CWG Chair/Vice-Chair (Forum Ballot) and have the SCWG & CSWGs designate the appropriate sections that meet that criteria</div><div>2) Another option, which we did not discuss at length, but has tied in to past discussions on infrastructure, but which also clearly solves this, and w/o a change to Bylaws, is to remove the aforementioned sections from the FG/FMG such that they are not officially part of the FG/FMG, and merely aspects of the presentational format.</div><div><br></div><div>Put differently, #2 is highlighting that we don't dispute whether the Chair or Vice-Chair is allowed to produce a PDF or Word Doc version of the FG/FMG, even though those transform the representation. The version in GitHub does not, for example, have page numbers or a footer checked in - those are part of the presentation that's generated, as is the Table of Contents. The infrastructure group even looked at how to remove the need for the cover page being part of the document, by having that appended during the presentational generation.</div><div><br></div><div>The "issue" here that you're trying to work around is that specific tables have been incorporated into the FG/FMG itself. One option is to say "They're still part of the FG/FMG, but the Chair / Vice-Chair are allowed to change them independent of the IP review if the CWG should so designate and indicate", another option is to just have the CWG remove them from the FG/FMG, and allow the Chair to add them as part of the publication process, indicating what is part of the FG/FMG and what is part of document management.</div></div></div>