[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments-This week's meeting

[Andrew R. Whalley]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Dean Coclin via Govreform <
govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Ok. Not sure if the others want to continue the meeting without Ben,
> Virginia and I. Andrew, what do you think?
>

Pardon the terribly short notice, but I'm going to have to skip this week
too. Sorry!


> Regarding the question about the voting groups, it made sense when we were
> voting on items like ballots which will now be done in WGs. But now I can't
> understand why it makes sense. Sounds like a deeper discussion is required.
>


> Dean
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dean and all,
>
> Unfortunately, I’m not able to attend the meeting either due to a conflict
> that just came to light this morning.  My apologies.  I would be available
> to meet later this week if anyone is interested.
>
> Regarding the voting, we should look at why the two voting classes, CAs
> and Browsers, were formed in the first place.  Once we understand the
> rationale behind the voting structure we have, then we can determine if it
> makes sense to make changes to it.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595 <(669)%20227-9595>
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform <
> govreform at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> I may be traveling too and/or have a conflicting meeting tomorrow here in
> Washington DC.  Can we work on it offline?
> ------------------------------
> From: Dean Coclin via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org>
> Sent: ‎9/‎9/‎2017 5:29 PM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments-This week's meeting
>
> All:
> I won't be able to attend the call this week due to my travel out of the
> country. I suggest the following agenda:
>
> 1. Continue where we left off reviewing Gerv's comments below
> 2. Review bylaw changes from Virginia
> 3. Consider again what we started discussing last time about new WG
> members also becoming part of the plenary. What if someone like Oracle
> decides to join the code signing WG. What voting block would they go in at
> the plenary level? They are not a CA nor a browser.  Again, why should we
> have voting blocks at the plenary level? I still think there should just be
> one voting group there.
>
> Ben/Virginia-can you run the meeting please?
>
> Thanks,
> Dean
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org
> <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Govreform
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:04 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:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <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
> balloted.
>
> * 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
> new-style one!
>
> 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.
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/hUxW7p0L3KznEiexn3bKpNt-
> Zw9WHJYMw9GHrc3gCVw=?d=GZCg9vAN5MU4cbcVjeBPqmZdOu9Rok
> KnCqUQ1RBwfse1Y0p4CvGid-Mzn3wF8Xty1C3vEsoKV0Bbz3iX3yXF
> 5xVNd2lTbcWYFVDqIMlqGax8JBYzhgrYIUU8EXuBuutPd_XWX1twlNereeCa4RyBUzqmZEz-
> RjOnKyJRVUB9yHpeZvs12KmLYzp0MDWF_QxXppbNv50hUhQEaeVhEUH6jGyjBSs
> MHeogpAeZj7GEvlTdKZThgg31ytBFXWo59ytkRSVul_-eJNTlS1L1eMP6PB9zwsE4ME0IWLSTo
> tbeP-Z-qXeYk1_Qn26Q3QEdHmPp3kQBmTO1jfKv05LK8mjvp0hCczjcXd2k70ydNT7PBFr9JKt
> xdR7LnfYTAAGMbAU%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%
> 2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/mm6ov1SX5uyz8DDF0W66MWmzJ_
> ZO697Ji1BfAHeF1rc=?d=JgaHMYwP1JaIYwR6haWa3BzrQKU4_
> MLzy90GZwIU8eTJe5DXVJfl2K2C_bchqfHNObrmOkUiyV2xqyaEDCyUy-4gMAWEUI4n-
> RejLULJavX6VifHRhab_dKHIiAMjqxlKVPJDtjGHGX7kfQb_MurYKmuwbPD-
> SrhQebaHgdoeKC2Fem6HcKiNuAjGIAlm1y5hvHAQwY6hPXRjRA6hqqz9ZpZ1
> yqOpsTy1Pd0MUhcGPX9nAP1-LgjIDBxshWVI0ylkDIMfZIusOYzjTp
> XFTVs0fUExzjfJXA1CGXCz-5LMpNR0w79VfgigoC7O-zR0SqzS-fWDLgM-
> wv1W6NQvTwbRGLqRSP9wqC01f2Mw0aQth-doxfW18gyMBTlWWfvJSy5-
> 02ejxYqRaIOXdo6jRSQEFqiwwAydpAOkZzo46WmdlSXAKgeTLGYXW7-q8b-&
> u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/hrIaVp8gU22mHPFIL6Otz5wAO95CCQACu51skb_DaJo=?d=QhzthAGSONWhk7S7gKPYgjuj1DLhluYVriNRPtlmNVhYj4M_Oc8J5JUchrm-npGG5U14t210pDS3O-U0TNr2ANNqKtAlR0WElDytv3JlsqgVMslD8tVG9WYhgSpn_XRwSa3Qpl85vV2YFOjzaB1HU9bHmBA8Y6pAou0k7iApeXiwdIAfVpPoYGwKleYdJfEqHNRySZ08goSIaC_VwvqBUdSAgq4gm0-GhfmNa0QmVTFYY7o0N-bAq4EDtdI_Ewk5fyfyWE1WWisVaPJgRj9AlylDBiDHry0FVodaM0Dcxr83eseShvWUP3q1ECV_kImLu_owZJ6yHKrExFdpSXzWhQBmo0e_G87LtlhuPpuGTP3VQgO36ldseaQsFaHt7M-lY6e0u4QKIxrD9Z97WTDgg1vgjA%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/hrIaVp8gU22mHPFIL6Otz5wAO95CCQACu51skb_DaJo=?d=QhzthAGSONWhk7S7gKPYgjuj1DLhluYVriNRPtlmNVhYj4M_Oc8J5JUchrm-npGG5U14t210pDS3O-U0TNr2ANNqKtAlR0WElDytv3JlsqgVMslD8tVG9WYhgSpn_XRwSa3Qpl85vV2YFOjzaB1HU9bHmBA8Y6pAou0k7iApeXiwdIAfVpPoYGwKleYdJfEqHNRySZ08goSIaC_VwvqBUdSAgq4gm0-GhfmNa0QmVTFYY7o0N-bAq4EDtdI_Ewk5fyfyWE1WWisVaPJgRj9AlylDBiDHry0FVodaM0Dcxr83eseShvWUP3q1ECV_kImLu_owZJ6yHKrExFdpSXzWhQBmo0e_G87LtlhuPpuGTP3VQgO36ldseaQsFaHt7M-lY6e0u4QKIxrD9Z97WTDgg1vgjA%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20170912/1e1f3280/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4847 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20170912/1e1f3280/attachment-0001.p7s>