[cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

[Tim Hollebeek]

I would change "and" to "or", and send it out ASAP. That way anyone who
completes any of the steps before July 3rd is still a CABF member, and is
now a SC WG member, simply by responding on the public list or editing the
wiki.  We can fix up all three lists to be consistent once the ticking time
bomb is off the table.

 

Remember, we want this to be as easy as possible to avoid losing members.
Otherwise we have to deal with members rejoining, which would be a hassle.
Do you really want to have a discussion about whether Comodo's browser
application is order, when they are (hypothetically) force to re-apply?  Do
you want to force 25 CAs to put together and submit membership applications,
and then have to inspect and approve them, because they didn't dot the I's
and cross the T's in time to have "declared", and get dropped from CABF on a
technicality?

 

Remember that our bylaws allow people to challenge a CABF membership at any
time.  The fact that the SC WG membership rules are just the CABF membership
rules (mostly) means that in my mind, there should be a presumption of
validity of all SC WG declarations by current CABF members.  In fact we can
take the time bomb off the table by declaring that CABF members have (e.g.)
60 days to declare they are joining the SC WG by one of the approved
methods, and the presumption is that the membership application is valid
based on legacy CABF membership.  Sounds like a good and painless process to
me so we can get back to real work.

 

People can use the bylaws to challenge SC WG membership after the fact if
they believe circumstances have changed.  I strongly disagree that we need
to have an unnecessary round of inspections of member qualifications, or
further delays in the functioning of the forum beyond July 3rd.  What are we
trying to accomplish with those steps?

 

-Tim

 

From: Ben Wilson 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:20 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Kirk Hall
<Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List
<govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working
Group for editing

 

We need to have Server Certificate Working Group members or DigiCert and
Entrust will be the only CABF members on July 3 .  I think that we need to
send out an email telling people how they become members of the Working
Group.  The Bylaws state, "[they must] have formally declared their
participation in the CWG via the mechanism designated by the Forum prior to
attending."

 

But has the Forum designated the mechanism?

 

I was thinking members should be required to:

 

1.	email the public list (or alternatively email the WG chair and
vice-chair) and formally declare their participation in the Server
Certificate Working Group;
2.	subscribe to the mailing list -
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg; and 
3.	list their names here
https://cabforum.org/wiki/Server%20Certificate%20Working%20Group as follows:


The following have formally declared their participation in the Server
Certificate Working Group: 


Name 

Date of Declaration 

Date of Withdrawal 


Digicert, Inc. 

28 June 2018 

	

 

Thoughts?  Should I send this to the Management list and then follow up by
sending this to the Public list?

 

Ben

 

 

From: Tim Hollebeek 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:01 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG
List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >; Ben Wilson
<ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working
Group for editing

 

This is the point I raised at the end of the call.  I think we may need to
wait until July 3 to start transition actions, just so that it is clear that
the new bylaws are in effect.

 

However this does not prevent us from discussing what those actions are in
advance, so that we can proceed rapidly with them at the appropriate time.
This could include having a draft ballot of the election procedures that
could be submitted as SCWG Ballot 1.

 

-Tim

 

I agree that the SCWG itself exists now, and you and I are Vice Chair and
Chair, but we have no enumerated powers to start anything until July 3 - so
maybe we rephrase the message that way, and again do nothing until July 3.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180629/b5eac3cc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180629/b5eac3cc/attachment-0001.p7s>