[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Apr 27 17:23:20 UTC 2016

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>

> What is the objection to the working group continuing to work on the
> document? There isn't any IP obligations that arise from doing so and there
> isn't a cost to the forum for continued discussion.  Although you are
> welcome to put forward a ballot to disband the working group, why does
> Mozilla care what happens in that group unless it passes a renewed ballot?

As with Gerv, and as raised during previous discussion, we are extremely
uncomfortable with the continued activity of a WG created without following
our bylaws, as this sets precedent that our bylaws can be ignored when
convenient. Understandably, this is legally and structurally problematic.

I would put forward that a ballot should not be necessary to close the WG -
the WG was never chartered to begin with, as Gerv mentioned, and as we have
pointed out in the past. That said, we would happily endorse such a ballot,
on the basis that the work is unchartered, unscoped, and unclear that it
fits within the Forum's structure as the CA/Browser Forum. While it is a
useful discussion to inform that of the Governance WG, it should remain
unquestionable that the activities of the CSWG, by virtue of not having the
scope of the Forum accommodate those invested in such third-party mediated
code signing solutions, is inherently biased towards CAs, which are voting
members by virtue of their TLS involvement, and thus structurally
problematic and exclusionary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160427/c858557c/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list