[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

[Ryan Sleevi]

Agreed. My specific concern is the notion of a 'vote-a-rama' of text
changes to the Bylaws as the way of making progress.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> There is a bit of a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing going on
> here, though.
>
>
>
> I do think we need to do a better job of discriminating between critical,
> blocking issues,
>
> and issues that can be resolved after the ballot.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 10:39 AM
> *To:* Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Tim
> Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Dean Coclin <
> dean.coclin at digicert.com>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working
> Group meetings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/02/18 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's
> > worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to
> > allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an
> > IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity
> > of the Forum.
>
> Failure by whom? There have been innumerable rounds of review, and calls
> for review, and pleadings for review. At what point do we stop? How
> would you judge it? What would be your ballot triggers?
>
>
>
> And there's also been continued changes and corrections which themselves
> introduce new issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/ff88a37d/attachment.html>