[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Wed Nov 1 11:29:12 MST 2017


We didn’t want to include a list of “approved methods” in the Bylaws, because then we’d have to amend the Bylaws every time some new communication tool came along that someone wanted to use.

Dean has a good point below regarding use of closed mailing lists - there are times and places where they could be appropriate.

As Dean suggests, I think the way to monitor this is through the charters being proposed to the Forum for approval.  If Forum members don’t like what’s being proposed, they can vote no.  Also, if members are really concerned about making sure they see everything, they should join the WG. 

Best regards,

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

On Nov 1, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:

" Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop a WG setting up a closed mailing list and using it, and that would be a major step backwards for CAB Forum transparency."

A working group has to be approved by the Forum members. This is what would stop a WG from doing what you suggest.

Also, there may be legitimate reasons to have a closed mailing list. I recall when we did code signing that we were discussing items that would be of interest to people that would want to hack the system. Hence an open list was not in the best interest of the group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Govreform
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 12:08 PM
To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <Govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

On 31/10/17 22:45, Virginia Fournier wrote:
> There was no intent to make anything less transparent.  Rather, the 
> intent was to let the WGs decide their own methods of communication 
> rather than micromanaging it and telling them what they have to use.
>  Does this seem ok?  Is there some broader language that you’d be ok with?

My original proposal for this was the list of approved methods of communication. If we can't do that, then we definitely need something which says that communications methods need to be transparent.
Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop a WG setting up a closed mailing list and using it, and that would be a major step backwards for CAB Forum transparency.

Can you suggest a way that we can ensure that communications methods are open and transparent, without micromanaging?

Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org

More information about the Govreform mailing list