[cabfpub] Trend Micro proposal comments

[Chris Palmer]

+1 to all these questions.


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Here are some additional comments on Trend Micro's proposal, with the
> aim of refining and clarifying it before the next vote.
>
> Header: "Specific details, bylaws, rules, and intra-member agreements
> would be drafted and approved by the Forum later if this governance
> proposal is approved." Would it make sense for Trend Micro and others to
> start that process now, so we can see what we are voting for with more
> specificity?
>
> Part A, 1: votes and voting results are not specifically mentioned here.
> Are they to be included in the public part of the Forum's workings?
>
> Part B, 1: Who draws up the Working Group charter? Is the idea that a
> Working Group is created when the Forum votes to approve the charter,
> using the normal mechanisms?
>
> Part B, 3: Non-members of the Working Group do not have to agree to the
> IPR policy, but may provide comments on proposal drafts. Is that
> correct? Is there an issue here?
>
> Part B, 3: If the CAB Forum itself has a meeting, are 'independent
> parties' (e.g. those involved in one or more working groups) permitted
> to attend the proceedings, perhaps with observer status for those bits
> not related to their working group?
>
> Part C, 4: "Consider creation of an Executive Committee..." Can we
> either make this part of the proposal, make it not part of the proposal,
> or give some details as to how we will decide whether or not we need one?
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public