[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

[Peter Bowen]

How about a much simpler solution:

The CA/Browser Forum Code Signing Working Group (CABFCSWG) will cease meeting immediately and the topic will be removed from the bi-weekly conference agenda.

Anyone interested in discussing the Code Signing Baseline Requirements that Microsoft had decided to adopt can meet to discuss these independently, rather than under the auspices of the CA/Browser Forum.. If the CA/Browser Forum chair see so fit, he or she can invite one or more people who attend those meetings to join the bi-weekly CA/Browser Forum conference call, as long as those people have signed the IPR agreement.

I think that the current conference call line we frequently use for working group meetings belongs to a CABF member, so it would be up to that member if they want to allow the new group to use the line.

Would this resolve the concerns of Google and Mozilla?

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> wrote:
> 
> 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? 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:14 AM
> To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: [cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am told that the Code Signing Working Group is not only working with its
> members to provide the necessary open licensing for its work product to
> allow it to be used outside the forum (an activity I entirely
> support) but is also continuing to work on the document itself, which was
> rejected by the Forum in ballot 158.
> 
> Given the reasons which were given for the rejection, it seems unlikely that
> the group is working on the document because it reasonably expects to
> present it for a re-vote in the near future. This raises the question of why
> work continues at all.
> 
> At this point, we would look at the ballot which formed the Code Signing
> Working Group to see what its terms of reference were and when the Working
> Group expires; however, this Working Group was not properly formed using a
> ballot, and so no such document exists.
> 
> If organizations or companies outside the Forum want to take the work
> product under the new license and use it, perhaps with further
> modifications, then those modifications are the responsibility of those
> companies, and not of the Forum. (And neither the original nor any resulting
> document should be labelled in a way which suggests that it is an official
> Forum document.)
> 
> We do now have a Governance Reform working group which (I hope) may one day
> result in a reform of the CAB Forum governance to allow sub-parts of the
> Forum to work on Code Signing, Email, etc., with some hope that their
> documents might be accepted by the full Forum. At that point, it may make
> sense to have a Code Signing Working Group, even continuing the work started
> by this one on the Code Signing BRs. However, we are nowhere near that yet.
> 
> Given the lack of formal status or of a clear mission which is within the
> scope of the Forum, I am minded to put forward a ballot to disband the Code
> Signing Working Group, and I want to bring this idea to the list for
> discussion. If we later need such a group again, we can constitute one in
> accordance with the Bylaws.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public