[cabfpub] Validation WG

[Jeremy Rowley]

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.

Dean

-----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
5.3):
https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/143%20-%20Formalization%20of%20validation%20working%20group

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...)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- 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>