[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

[Gervase Markham]

Hi Dean,

On 09/05/16 23:48, Dean Coclin wrote:
> The Code Signing Ballot took place in December. The group has been meeting
> continuously since then as well at the F2F in Scottsdale this past February.
> I'm not sure why this has suddenly come up as an "urgent" item to wind down
> ahead of the Bilbao meeting. Why didn't it come up in Scottsdale? As Rich
> said, it's our intent to wrap it up at this final F2F meeting.

My understanding - and perhaps I should have looked into it harder more
quickly - was that the group was engaged in a process of freeing the
document for use elsewhere (an activity I totally support, as long as
the CAB Forum's name is removed when they are used in other contexts),
rather than continuing to edit it.

Thank you for your assurances that the group is intending to wrap up.

> Look, if it would make this problem go away, I can change the agenda item
> title to, "A group of people that want to talk about code signing"
> 11:30-1:00

My issue is not really whether the group is referred to as a Working
Group or not, it's that it's meeting to edit this particular document
under the CAB Forum banner (i.e. it's on the agenda). If that document
is to be a topic of discussion (and I understand it is), then if you
were to change the title to "Extended break", that would help a great deal.

This may seem like a trivial change and arguing about rules. But the
reason we have Bylaws on what's a working group and what isn't, and IPR
agreements on what's an official document and what isn't, and so on, is
so that everyone knows where they stand.

I would urge the membership to consider the possible negative
consequences of allowing sub-groups of the forum to get together without
a ballot, work on documents and then the CAB Forum's name being attached
to those documents without a ratification vote having passed. I would
like to see this not happen again, and any existing instances of it
resolved.

Gerv