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

[Virginia Fournier]

Tim raises a good question below, regarding whether legacy working groups and newly-approved working groups should both be called “working groups.”  Maybe we should make a clear distinction between “Legacy Groups,” and “Chartered Working Groups,” or something similar.  Thoughts?

There’s also a question about a mechanism to convert “legacy” working groups to “chartered” working groups within 6 months.  The process for converting a “legacy” group into a “chartered” group is specified in Section 5.3.4 (see below) of the new Bylaws.  The legacy group would need to go through the same process as any other group would to get a charter approved.  So the process is already covered.
5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups
Any legacy Working Groups in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of immediately terminating or continuing in effect without change for 6 months following such approval.  For a legacy a Working Group to continue beyond such 6 months, it must have a charter approved as described in Section 5.3.1 above, as if it was a new Working Group.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:31:59 -0700
From: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy &
	Bylaws re Working Group Formation
Message-ID:
	<CAJE6Z6cav=sARZkyvSvp_+=BWT_ffe2N8aMRybTBibdL9iMtaA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> 
> What are we going to do about continuity of existing working groups (old
> terminology, not new)?  Is it necessary for the Server Certificate Working
> Group Charter to say anything about sub-working groups (I wish we hadn't
> used the existing term "working group" to mean something new, it is going
> to be very confusing).
> 
> Section 5.3.4 states that "legacy" working groups can be terminated
immediately or must be rechartered within 6 months.

There is no such thing as a "sub-working group" under the new bylaws. I
think this means that there is no mechanism for an existing WG like
Validation or Network Security to bring a proposal to the Server
Certificate WG for discussion and voting?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180116/a613818d/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:14 +0000
From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy &
	Bylaws re Working Group Formation
Message-ID:
	<DM5PR14MB128949AC267566F7DBC0EFC683EA0 at DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Yes, that last part is what I?m concerned about.  We said they need to be re-chartered within 6 months, but I think we dropped the ball on including a mechanism to do so.



-Tim



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180118/313986b2/attachment-0003.html>