[cabfpub] Validation WG

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Mon Nov 7 17:44:09 UTC 2016

Right - we put the working group on pause pending the resolution of ballot 179. The scope, charter, etc. would all be the exact same as before. There's already a requirement to supply minutes for each meeting - I just failed to do so. I'll make sure I provide them within a week of each meeting from now on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Public
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 10:38 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG

In my opinion, this working group was properly chartered in Ballot 143 (which I note Mozilla voted YES).  The working group was never formally terminated but rather was put in a "dormant" status since the production of ballot 169. I think working group members needed a break after 1.5 years of work. Restarting the work of this group shouldn't require a ballot unless the scope has changed.

We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather, deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group. 

Code Signing was a different issue as I believe the argument there was there wasn't a formal ballot to charter the group.


-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:06 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG

On 07/11/16 16:46, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote:
> During the face-to-face we discussed restarting the validation working 
> group. Please let me know if you are interested and the agenda items 
> you’d like to discuss. We plan on starting the meetings at the time 
> slot previously occupied by the code signing working group (9 Pacific).

Not wanting to be a process geek, but does it require a ballot to restart a WG?

Checking the wiki, it seems like we didn't follow the Bylaws when we created it and outline a "Working Group expiration date" (Bylaws section

Did we raise this issue before in the context of this WG, or not? (I know it came up in the context of the Code Signing WG...)

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161107/3626879d/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list