[cabfpub] Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group

[Gervase Markham]

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
> Monday, 

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.

<sigh>

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.

Gerv