[cabf_governance] FW: Ballot 206 comments
ben.wilson at digicert.com
Sun Oct 1 23:43:30 MST 2017
Below is a more up-to-date record of where we were/are.
From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean
Coclin via Govreform
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 12:04 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments
Here is where we ended up today, reviewing these comments:
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase
Markham via Public
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 11:49 AM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 206 comments
My thanks to the hard-working members of the Governance WG. I hope these
comments do not come too late. I have not yet been able to persuade my
counsel to look at the IPR agreement.
Here are my thoughts:
* The base version of the Bylaws you have used appears to be version 1.6.
This is indeed the latest version on the website, but it's not the latest
version - the latest would include the changes in ballot 205, which passed
on 7th of July. Please can you rebase your changes on top of the most recent
version, and (probably) renumber your version as a proposed 1.8?
>>Ben is taking care of this
* The changes from ballot 205 may well need tweaking in light of the new
membership rules and categories, and how Forum membership and WG membership
are separated. Have you yet considered this?
>>Will review again once above is done
* Membership: so the idea for the non-CA category is that the set of
companies/people eligible to join the Forum as a whole consists of anyone
who fits the criteria for one or more existing Working Groups, plus anyone
who "produces a software product intended for use by the general public for
browsing the Web securely"? What happens if a WG is closed down and a member
thereby no longer qualifies for Forum membership, because the WG whose
membership rules allowed them in has gone?
>>Discussion ensued on whether this is true or not. Andrew/Virginia/Jos/Ben
stated that the Forum level should be the Union of all WGs. Dean - not sure
If WG ceases, Forum membership ceases, but can become IP
* Would it be a good idea in section 5.3.3 to explicitly say that when a
Working Group adopts Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines, the
only people who are eligible to vote on them are the members of the Working
Group? You haven't made any changes to section 2.2, particularly 2.2b), and
so one could get the impression that the Working Group does the work, but
all Members can vote on adoption.
>>WG votes on its own work and will clarify 2.3b
* What happens to existing Working Groups when these bylaws come into
effect? Nothing seems to define that. Do they evaporate? Or still exist,
even though they aren't chartered in the way prescribed by the current
Bylaws? Or something else? I suggest we say explicitly in ballot 206.
>>Policy, Governance, Validation are the current groups. These WGs should be
sunsetted after a period of time (6 mos) and would need a new charter
* It's also not clear what happens to existing documents. Presumably they
need to be transferred into the "ownership" of a Working Group, such that
the IPR policy relating to that document only applies to WG members from
then on. Would that be something done by the chartering ballot?
>>Develop a chart of documents currently maintained and who would take them
over. If no new owner, call them "legacy" docs until new owner (working
group) is established.
* "A Working Group may also include Interested Parties and Associate
Members." Note "may". Is it permissible for a Working Group to exclude such
people? I'm not sure we should allow that...
>>This is permissive language. The charter will determine who will be in the
working group. If people don't like it, they can vote against it.
STOP HERE 8/29/17
* The draft removes the requirement that Working Group mailing lists "must
be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List". This requirement,
although perhaps needing generalization, is an important part of the Forum's
transparency, and its loss is a significant matter.
How can it be best reinstated such that it applies appropriately to the
means of communication employed by Working Groups?
There was talk at some point of having a list of approved means of
communication, and requiring a Bylaw amendment to add to the list (at which
time, such means could be scrutinised for appropriateness in this and other
regards). I still think there is value in that.
* The new section 3 of ballot 206 deals with ballots in the Review Period,
but not ballots in the Voting Period. It's quite possible there might be
such a ballot on the day that ballot 206 exits IPR review (or otherwise
comes into effect, according to Kirk's amendment to section 3). It might be
worth making sure we have covered all bases here, including Voting Period
and Discussion Period.
* I support the idea of Kirk's amendment to section 3; it makes sense for
the new documents to not come into effect until everything is in place for
us to continue operating as now. However, it does create a chicken and egg
problem - if those documents are not in effect, then the ballot chartering a
new Working Group would be chartering an old-style Working Group, not a
I'm not sure how best to fix this. We can't run an extra ballot in parallel,
as that would also be under the old rules. Can we extend ballot 206 to
include the formation of a Web Server Working Group, and say "this WG is
formed under the rules being approved by this ballot", or does that also
cause problems? If there is no fix, we may need a 2-week work hiatus.
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4974 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Govreform