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

Ben Wilson ben at digicert.com
Tue Jan 21 05:23:29 UTC 2014

That's fine.  I agree with your interpretation. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:52 PM
To: Dean Coclin; Gervase Markham; Ryan Sleevi; Ben Wilson
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

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 List.

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 manner.
>Public mailing list
>Public at cabforum.org

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140120/54967645/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list