[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

[Gervase Markham]

On 19/01/18 01:32, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> *All of the above 5 WGs would be individual, independent, separate
> groups and would not be subcommittees, subgroups, ancillaries, or
> subordinates of any other group.*

The (current) work of e.g. the Validation WG is clearly a subset of the
work of the Server Certificate WG. If it were to be set up as a "top
level" WG, that relationship would not be clear, it would need its own
bylaws etc., have an independent lifecycle, and all that seems a bit
heavyweight.

That doesn't mean we need a formal mechanism for sub-Working Groups. We
can just form them informally - "This is the Validation sub-committee of
the Server Certificate WG. Its calls are at this time - anyone in the
Server Certificate WG can join. When they come up with ideas or
proposals, they bring them to the full WG for approval." You could do
something like that without needing formal Bylaw support, IMO. Perhaps
that is the way forward?

Gerv