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

[Gervase Markham]

On 05/06/17 21:28, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>     If we actually have a working group, we can gather expressions of
>     interest, perhaps even choose a chair, and the interested parties can
>     start defining a direction that their work will take them in.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. How does a WG promote that - since you
> could just as well accomplish the same in the F2F. 

You can't choose the chair of a WG without having a WG. You can't get
people to commit to be in a WG without having a WG. So those people
can't then sit down and start work.

If having a WG is irrelevant to making progress, why did the last
discussion of this topic conclude that we needed one? Why do we have
them at all?

What I am expecting and hoping for is that Kirk as Forum Chair will, in
anticipation of the passing of this ballot, add this WG to the list of
meetings on the F2F WG day (Tuesday). Then, people interested in this
topic will turn up (or make themselves known to Kirk if they can't be
present), and the Chair will appoint one of those people as Chair of the
WG, as the Bylaws say he should. The group will then begin to establish
the mechanisms by which it will analyse the situation and deliver on its
deliverables.

If this topic is to be addressed via a WG, this is all useful progress
which could not be made nearly as well without a WG existing.

If people feel this topic should not be addressed via a WG, they should
obviously vote No on the ballot to charter it. (Hopefully with feedback
as to how they think it would be better addressed.)

Gerv