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

Wayne Thayer wthayer at godaddy.com
Tue Jan 21 04:52:13 UTC 2014

My reading of the bylaws (section 5.3) is that they do not stipulate that
working group mailing lists are not public, and I could even argue they¹re
supposed to be public based on this:

With the approval of the Chair, Working Groups may establish separate
list-servs, wikis, and web pages for their communications, but all such
separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail

Can we clarify this? I¹d like to use a public list for the Performance WG.



On 1/20/14, 9:38 AM, "Dean Coclin" <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:

>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.
>-----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
>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 ³important² 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 we¹ll 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
>Public mailing list
>Public at cabforum.org

More information about the Public mailing list