[cabfpub] Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group
gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Jun 5 13:02:06 MST 2017
On 05/06/17 18:29, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> But you've set yourself up for a process upon which production of report
> may take forever, due to stalling tactics and a desire to 'explore other
> proposals' before finalizing the report.
And if you have a date-based criteria, a group which for some reason
doesn't want the WG to produce a report simply has to delay until the
expiry date. And if you argue "well, it'll get rechartered", then it's
exactly the same as the version without a date-based end.
A date-based end does not solve this problem.
> In general, we try to follow our bylaws. We've seen what happens when
> WGs are chartered not consistent to our bylaws - the Code Signing WG is
> a prime example of this, where an ad-hoc determination to start a WG
> with both IP and scope encumbrances.
Respectfully, this is not that.
> Considering the proposal was broached on a Friday and put forward on a
Well, no, we've been meaning to charter this working group since the
last face to face. To my mind, it's a fairly simple procedural step that
we need to go through in order to actually have the discussions about
what to do.
I've revised the ballot to add an expiry date, but with a postponement
clause. This meets the letter of the bylaws and should reduce administrivia.
More information about the Public