[cabf_governance] Next steps Governance Working Group
pzb at amzn.com
Wed Jun 1 09:14:44 MST 2016
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrust.com> wrote:
> 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).
I think this is the simplest solution. The Forum approves the creation of Working Groups, including their charter, and then the WG operates autonomously, including voting for adoption.
> 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?
I think at least changing when the IPR applies has to be part of the governance discussion. Maybe it needs to apply to WG members when the WG adopts a final WG guideline.
More information about the Govreform