[cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

[Ben Wilson]

Let's discuss this at the Face-to-Face meeting.  (With 6 "yes" votes from
CAs and 2 "no" votes from Browsers, Ballot 110 barely made quorum and did
not pass.)

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Gervase Markham; Ryan Sleevi; Ben Wilson
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the
Bylaws

I think the only way to solve this debate (regarding working groups) is to
do what we have in the normal forum lists: 2 lists, one for WG MGMT and one
for WG PUB. For example, we don't want the conference dial in information
for the working group to go on the public list nor do we want sensitive
security related news (which may be given to us under certain conditions) to
be public either. But we certainly do want to show other discussions. 

Would that address 5.3?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Ben Wilson
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the
Bylaws

On 03/02/14 20:01, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> As discussed in the past, Google has serious reservations with the 
> proposed changes to Section 5.2.

Unless there is consensus (and it actually happens in practice) that Working
Group mailing lists are themselves public, then I agree that the changes to
section 5.2 (with the exception of the change to part c, which we support)
represent a reduction in transparency which is unacceptable.

If the changes to the Bylaws were also to make it clear that WG mailing
lists should be public, then the changes to section 5.2 would become a wise
and sensible measure to reduce participant overload while making sure Forum
members could keep a high level overview of WG activity, and would command
our support.

For this reason, Mozilla votes No.

> Equally, the unrelated changes to
> Sections 5.3,

Balloting the creation of WGs worked out fine for the performance WG, and
forced me to more clearly describing the scope of the group.
Therefore, we are mildly opposed to this change, as being unnecessary.
The creation of new WGs is not that common, and waiting for a ballot to pass
is not onerous.

> and the significant broadening of Section 1.2,

I wouldn't see section 1.2 as normative, in a "ah, 1.2 says anyone can join,
therefore we must let anyone join" sense; if Paypal, ETSI and WebTrust are
part of the Forum, then this seems a reasonable change as part of a summary
statement. So Mozilla does not object to the changes in section 1.2.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140207/bb1c101d/attachment.bin