[cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others
wthayer at godaddy.com
Mon Mar 2 19:29:48 UTC 2015
Adrien can now post to the public list.
From: Dean Coclin [mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:59 AM
To: Ryan Sleevi; kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; Wayne Thayer
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others
I don’t believe people need to be “invited” to become interested parties (at least I don’t see that in our Bylaws section 3.2). But I do see that Adrien has signed the IPR policy yesterday and therefore he can be granted access to post to the public mailing list. Hence, reposting messages after that point in time should be ok. But I do agree that messages prior to that shouldn’t have been reposted.
Wayne-can you please grant him posting privileges to the public list?
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:35 AM
To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
Subject: [cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others
Is this confirmation that Adrien has been invited to the Forum as an Interested Party? If so, it would help if you, in your role as Vice-Chair, could explicitly clarify that, as your message earlier this morning suggested otherwise. If not, I fear your reposting of messages seems to violate our bylaws regarding participation on the public list as being restricted, by effectively forwarding messages on behalf of others. I realize this was done in the past as well, on behalf of Entrust (who left the Forum), and I raised similar concerns then.
As you know, we at Google worked quite hard to encourage the Forum to adopt an open and transparent participation policy, but the Forum voted otherwise when establishing its IPR policy. If this is an acceptable solution to engaging and encouraging openness with the public, then I will be the first to offer to forward any and all messages from willing participants to the public list. However, I can't help but feel that would violate the spirit and letter of our IPR policies as they presently, and unfortunately, stand.
While this might otherwise be best directed personally, the fact that this continues as an inconsistent practice that varies based upon the member in the Forum and who they are posting on behalf of, it seems most useful to have some public discussion on the practice and our bylaws and to make sure we are all in agreement. I would be thrilled if, as the result of such discussions, we establish the practice as acceptable, but that seems unlikely.
In either event, the current ambiguity makes it extremely difficult to engage in any meaningful discourse, especially to correct some of the misunderstandings and misstatements, as it leaves the conversation largely one-sided.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public