[cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group

[Kirk Hall]

There were a lot of good ideas at the Bilbao F2F meeting on next steps for the Governance Working Group - but I think there might be one issue that should be discussed early.

Toward the end of the governance discussion, Ryan said that one reason Google voted against the Code Signing ballot was because of our current IPR which applies whether a CABF Member participates on an issue or not.  If I understood correctly, Google might have abstained on the ballot if we had an IPR that only requires disclosure of IP if a member actually participates in a guideline, etc.

Some of the Governance Working Group proposals to spin off sub-groups (like Code Signing, Document Signing, etc.) were proposed to allow each subgroup to adopt its own IPR, etc. - but any final product will have to come back to the Forum for a ballot and adoption (unless we let Working Groups adopt their own guidelines, without final Forum action).

If we modify the Forum's IPR so it becomes "participation only", I wonder if that will greatly simplify the rest of the work of this committee.  Maybe the spinoffs, separate IPR policies, etc. won't be necessary.  Remember, we already allow non-CAs and non-browsers to fully participate in Working Groups, so we are already allowing greater involvement at the Working Group level.

Should we take another look at the Forum's IPR as part of the governance discussion?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160601/8507ca8c/attachment.html