[cabfpub] Validation WG

[Ryan Sleevi]

I think part of the concern, as seen in other SDOs, is that the broader the
charter, the harder it is for members to stay focused on a single
topic/issue, and the broader the time and energy committment means.

Having self-shuttering WGs provides benefit because it keeps WGs focused on
a concrete goal or deadline, and then allows for periodic re-evaluation of
whether this is the thing to work on and to continue working on.

Without that, you end up with a large initial group, it loses members
through attrition, and then you have an insular group producing stuff with
the imprimatur of consensus. A great example of this is the IETF's PKIX WG,
which was a veritable zombie in the years leading up to its shuttering.
Now, more specific, focused groups have issued to try and address specific
issues (e.g. LAMPS, CURDLE) that might have otherwise fell into an
'umbrella'

So there is definite benefit to avoiding 'parking lot' WGs, both short and
long term. I don't believe it's as significant issue right now, in this
specific case, but I think more broadly speaking, if validation WG wants to
continue to take on new work, we should look to try to call for consensus
with objectives before doing anything too substantive.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Dean Coclin via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> I would say that "Validation" is an ongoing topic of continuing change and
> update. Instead of burdening the entire forum every time a change or
> improvement to validation takes place, this group is the appropriate
> "parking
> lot" for discussion/investigation.  They can then produce the "one or more
> documents offering options to the Forum for validation.." (taken from the
> ballot).
>
> If you recall the history of this group started as the EV Working Group and
> focused originally on EV vetting methods. But as we came across non-EV
> situations, the Forum decided to expand the scope of the original group and
> become a "catch all" for anything validation related. Hence it is
> difficult to
> put a specific deliverable given this scope.
>
> Dean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:38 AM
> To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion
> List <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG
>
> On 07/11/16 17:38, Dean Coclin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That sounds fine to me under the circumstances. Although I would second
> Ryan's
> call for careful minuting - this is an area that we know has IPR mines
> buried
> in it.
>
> > We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather,
> > deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group.
>
> But as currently chartered, the Validation WG has no end date and no
> deliverable whose delivery would terminate the group, right?
>
> Gerv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161110/741ba9b0/attachment-0003.html>