[cabfpub] FW: Associate member of the CA/B Forum

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Mon Apr 11 22:32:34 UTC 2016

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:

> 2.      The issue of whether and how to open up the Forum to more voices
> comes up often.  I have said multiple times – I would not oppose, and might
> even favor, a new email address where anyone in the world could post on
> issues before us – so long as someone volunteers to moderate the postings
> and exclude trolls, etc.  And I would want to keep this list separate from
> the current management@ (which deals with logistics issues among members)
> and separate from the public@ list (which I think requires signing the
> IPR and becoming an Associate Member to have posting rights).  I think many
> of the blogging sites run by others suffer from too many postings from
> people with strong opinion but who are not directly affected by the subject
> at hand, who sometimes drown out other voices, and I wouldn’t want that to
> happen with what we already have (which seems a pretty efficient method for
> us to do our business).  But a third email address for an open list that
> someone volunteers to moderate could be useful.
Interested Parties can participate on the list. That's the whole point of
this concern about Associate Members vs Interested Parties - interested
parties CAN fully participate on the list(s), as I pointed out earlier on
the list, and was previously raised on the call. See the Bylaws v 1.4 and
compare Sections 3.1 with 3.2

All of the rights are the same, with two notable exceptions:
1) Interested parties cannot see or participate the management@ list
2) Interested Parties can't just show up at meetings / on calls - they have
to be invited by the Chair.

I argue that 1 is a good thing; I think there is a bias towards wanting to
conduct business in secret, especially as shown by the discussions of
SHA-1, and I think that harms, rather than helps, the ecosystem. Full
members today already struggle in making sure that substantive technical
discussions happen on the correct (public) list and don't occur on the
management@ list during the discussion of draft minutes.

And as I tried to explain in my previous message, 2 is also arguably a good

So if your concern is "Keep out Interested Parties" - that ship has already
sailed. Anyone who wants to join as an Interested Party can. And we've
already discussed (and accepted and acknowledged) that members can forward
messages on behalf of the 'general public' to the public@ list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160411/a361b0e3/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list