[cabfpub] Post-Ballot 110 Bylaw Issues

[Gervase Markham]

On 24/01/14 23:02, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Thanks, Ryan.  On the browser membership category, those of us who
> represent CAs may not have a full appreciation of all of the issues. 
> Therefore, would someone from the “browser” side of this organization be
> willing to propose a rework of that membership category and/or
> alternative categories and voting rules as you suggest? 

Just to update this discussion: on the last call, I believe it was
agreed that what we really need here is a problem statement. The two
companies we explicitly discussed may well already qualify under
existing definitions, either as CAs or as browsers.

So, until we have an example of a company who credibly wants to or might
want to join, and for whom there is general agreement that the current
definition is insufficiently broad, it seems there is nothing to do here.

Feel free to argue with this conclusion :-)

Gerv