[cabf_governance] Draft Minutes of Today's Call

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Wed Mar 1 17:10:30 MST 2017

On the question of whether or not there must be non-CA members on a new WG - as I recall, we thought there could be cases of "if you built it, they will come" where CAs can start a WG and do initial work that is intended to attract other non-CA members.
Also, it's entirely possible that there could be an issue that CAs want to work on but browsers (and other non-CAs) do not - that would be a case where there might NEVER be non-CA members.
I think in earlier discussions we agreed we would try to identify the types of non-CA parties who might want to join in the new WG Charter (just for clarity of purpose), but I don't think WGs should be required to actually have non-CA members so long as they reach out to those they think could make a contribution to the WT (even if they are turned down).
From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Govreform
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:45 PM
To: Govreform at cabforum.org
Cc: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Subject: [cabf_governance] Draft Minutes of Today's Call

CA/B Forum Governance WG Minutes - 28-February-2017
Present:  Jos Purvis, Virginia Fournier, Ben Wilson, Jeremy Rowley, and Robin Alden
The group reviewed comments to Dean's email of 17-Jan-2017 to the public list "Seeking comments on Governance Change outline".  Jos noted that Gerv's comment had asked about the degree to which each WG should have non-CA members-some other constituency.  The argument has been that if there weren't others interested, then there wouldn't be much reason for having a working group.  The current draft outline says that the other constituency has to exist, but not that they have to have joined the working group.  So we could clarify the degree to which the other constituency must be present.  Ben said that he thought an indication of interest should require something in writing from the non-CA so that it is not hearsay or speculation.  Jos asked what would happen if a non-CA indicated interest or even joined the working group and then changed their mind and left.  Ben suggested that we treat it like we treat quorum, that once quorum has been established discussion can proceed.  Jos wondered whether such a group of only CAs or some other group could adopt guidelines.
There was discussion about what conditions might require a working group to disband.  Ben argued that disbanding shouldn't be done automatically based on non-participation of a non-CA.
Jos said he was unsure whether other organizations have this two-party dichotomy like the CA/Browser Forum.  Virginia said that the W3C didn't have rules that could be used as a model.  Ben and Jos felt that the overarching committee of all Forum members could decide to disband a working group.  Jos said that the group could review working group status every 6 months.  Ben said that this group of the whole Forum could be called the "plenary", and Jos said that this would be a good way to identify the CA/B Forum as a whole.
Jeremy said that non-CA membership in working groups should not be required because there are groups outside the Forum that rely on the output of Forum working groups who do not participate in working groups.
Ben asked what terminology we should use for disbanding a working group because he didn't like the term "terminate" because it sounded too final.  Virginia said another term could be "discontinue" and the group liked that.  Thus, the bylaws could say something like, "The plenary can vote to discontinue a working group."
Ben asked besides revising the bylaws, what other items did the group need to review.  Virginia said that the IPR policy would need revision because it would apply at the working-group level instead of the Forum across the board.  She also said that the charter template needed to be reviewed.  Ben mentioned that he had circulated a draft SMIME charter template and asked people to fill it in.  Virginia said it would be helpful if those interested in an SMIME working group would complete that draft charter template.
Jos suggested that a diagram of the working groups and umbrella group would be helpful.  Ben said he would create one.  Ben also said he would put the bylaws up on Google Docs so that people could start to make editing suggestions.
Meeting adjourned.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20170302/6f24804b/attachment.html>

More information about the Govreform mailing list