[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

[Dean Coclin]

Gerv,
Jeremy reminds me that there are valid EV Code Signing issues to discuss (see 
recent posting to the public list). As you know, the EV Code Signing doc is a 
valid CA/B Forum document. What is your proposal for discussing those? Agenda 
item in regular meeting? CSWG item?

Thanks
Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 5:22 AM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; Rich Smith 
<richard.smith at comodo.com>; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160510/22b77d6b/attachment-0001.p7s>