[Infrastructure] FW: [cabfman] Changes to Interested Party application section of website
dean.coclin at digicert.com
Thu Feb 11 21:33:13 UTC 2021
I believe this group is looking at some changes to the website. I’m forwarding this email from about a year ago just to make sure these changes are captured.
From: Management <management-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Management
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 1:31 PM
To: 'management at cabforum.org' (management at cabforum.org) <management at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfman] Changes to Interested Party application section of website
To preface: No objections to the proposed change.
The rest below is mostly attempting to explore the systemic issues of confusion, and speculate on possible ideas. Note that we can also take these to the Infrastructure WG or even to the Forum public list, since this is about the website and about making it easier for members to participate. Even as an administrative issue, it might be useful to show intent :)
I mentioned on the call we had other pages that also discussed participation, and making sure we've got them consistent:
We also have https://github.com/cabforum/documents/blob/master/.github/contributing.md which is shown when folks try to open up a pull request or file a new issue
I mention these mostly to make sure we've got a smooth onboarding process for potential members. For IPs, it's probably non-ideal; for example, if they start from GitHub, they have to click three more links (first to contributing, then to potential members, then to working groups). If they start from our homepage, they likely go to potential members, then to working groups, both of which have large amounts of text.
Perhaps we should consolidate these? Or perhaps streamline onto a page that focuses on how potential members seem to think of it - e.g. starting by thinking about the WG first and what it takes to participate in the WG?
Information for Potential Members
Server Certificate Working Group
3. Other interested organizations
Code Signing Working Group
And then have steps that help guide them through the process?
Just $.02. There's a lot of information, so maybe densification isn't the option, but just trying to explore how applicants seem to model their understanding of the CA/B Forum, and how we can get them to the information they want quickly.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 1:18 PM Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com> > wrote:
<On management list since this is an administrative issue>
As discussed on today’s call, I said I would re-look at the section of our website that gives instructions to Interested Parties on how to apply to the Forum.
On this page: https://cabforum.org/working-groups/, the following text can be found:
In order to participate as an Interested Party in the Forum / Working Group, you need to:
1. Review the Intellectual Property Rights policy <https://cabforum.org/ipr-policy/> and complete the IPR agreement found there; and
2. Send an email to questions at cabforum.org <mailto:questions at cabforum.org> with your name, organization (if applicable), contact details and the signed IPR agreement with the subject: Participation as an Interested Party in the [Working Group Name] Working Group.
In order to improve this text and to address the issue discussed on today’s call, I propose the following:
Add text after #2 to read: Send an email to questions at cabforum.org <mailto:questions at cabforum.org> with your name, organization (if applicable), contact details and the signed IPR agreement with the subject: Participation as an Interested Party in the [Working Group Name] Working Group. PLEASE NOTE: If you are applying as an individual, make sure to leave the title and organization fields blank.
Comments appreciated. For reference, the IPR Agreement form is here: https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CAB-Forum-Agreement-for-IPR-Policy_20FEB18.pdf
Management mailing list
Management at cabforum.org <mailto:Management at cabforum.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4916 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Infrastructure