[cabf_governance] Governance Change WG Tentative Recommendation (draft)

[Kirk Hall]

Today, the Forum has “working groups,” which work on short term and long term projects to create proposals for the main Forum to consider and/or vote on.  Some of our working groups have lasted for years – they are essentially perpetual.

Now that we are devolving all activity to “Working Groups”, we can no longer use that term for smaller sub-groups.  While “Task Force” as a name would be ok, what about using “Subcommittee” instead?  To me, a Task Force has an especially temporary and special-issue sound to it, while a Subcommittee could continue its work indefinitely (like some of our current working groups do).

From: vfournier at apple.com [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>; Govreform at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Governance Change WG Tentative Recommendation (draft)

Hi Ben,

Putting it on a Google doc sounds fine.

I’m ok with “task forces.”  That’s a good way to distinguish the ad hoc groups from working groups.




Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>




On Aug 15, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com<mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>> wrote:

Thanks Kirk and Virginia.

Do we want to  put these up on Google docs?

Also, I noticed that my idea of ad hoc working groups didn’t make it in.  Was that what was decided?  I can see the need for convening occasional informal groups. Can we call them “Task Forces”?

From: govreform-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>>
Cc: Govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Governance Change WG Tentative Recommendation (draft)

Ok, sounds good.  Thanks!







Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>




On Aug 11, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>> wrote:

These are good comments and suggestions, Virginia, and we can discuss on the next Governance WG call.

We should probably add that the CAB Chair is automatically the Chair of the Web Working Group, and that each other WG gets to elect its own Chair and Vice Chair.

From: vfournier at apple.com<mailto:vfournier at apple.com> [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:46 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrust.com>>
Cc: Patrick Tronnier <Patrick.Tronnier at oati.net<mailto:Patrick.Tronnier at oati.net>>; Govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Governance Change WG Tentative Recommendation (draft)

Attached are my initial comments on the document.












Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160815/235342bd/attachment-0001.html