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

[Dean Coclin]

My understanding is that the working group lists are not public. They are only available to the working group members but as you know, ANYONE can join a working group (by signing the IPR).

The results of the working group's efforts are made public via the CABF public list during CABF biweekly status updates and finally during a ballot to pass any resulting work.

Since anyone can join a WG and participate, I think the way it's currently set up is adequate.

Dean


-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:14 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi; Ben Wilson
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

On 18/01/14 02:40, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>     3) Why the removal of the transparency requirements in Section 5.2
>     for WGs? This is not at all desirable - although the modifications
>     to Section 5.2(c) are.____
> 
>     BTW:  The current language requires that EVERYTHING (even things
>     that are not currently being done, like the creation of agendas and
>     minutes for working groups) be posted to the public list – for some
>     people, the amount of email traffic on the public list is already
>     bad.  Read Section 5.2(e) where “important” working group updates
>     are addressed.  Otherwise, as the responsible executive interpreting
>     the bylaws I will have to start telling everyone that they must
>     prepare agendas and minutes and that all emails and every single
>     interim draft, agenda and all minutes will now need to be posted to
>     the public list, and then we’ll just eliminate the WG lists. 
> 
> I for one would welcome the enhanced transparency, and see it as a 
> feature, even as I'm already deluged in e-mail.

Is it the case that the working group lists are public? I thought it was. (If it's not, would that be an alternative fix?) If so, then having them post stuff to the public list is a matter of notification, not transparency. And I think we need to get a balance where not-directly-involved members are informed about the general goings-on, but are not given everything - otherwise, there'd be no point in having working group lists at all.

I'm very happy for the Code Signing Working Group to get on with it without being told about every idea and every document change - after all, once they have something to vote on, it comes back to the main list and they explain why they want it and we need to agree in the normal manner.

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: 6130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140120/2093a77d/attachment-0001.p7s>