[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Sep 14 10:53:44 MST 2018


We're in violent agreement, Tim. :)

But there's still an issue to solve. The bylaws don't establish how
subcommittees are run - minutes and lists are two examples. Whether or not
a chair is another. That's the sort of problem that a ballot is needed to
resolve - not the conversion. That's just 5.3.1(d) and (e).

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> What the Bylaws actually say is:
>
>
>
> “5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups Any “Legacy” Working Groups (“LWG”) in
> existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the
> option of (a) converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section
> 5.3.1(e), (b) immediately terminating, or (c) continuing in effect without
> change for 6 months following such approval. For an LWG 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.”
>
>
>
> The Validation Working Group has expressed its intention to become a
> Subcommittee at every opportunity.  Those who continually seek to deny it
> that option are clearly in violation of the Bylaws.
>
>
>
> Once again, the Validation Working Group has selected option (a).  If we
> want a Ballot to confirm that, we can have a ballot, but I will not allow
> members to obstruct the LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the
> Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> via Public
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:22 PM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CABFPub <
> public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the
> Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
>
>
> You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will
> incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple
> threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize
> where we stand:
>
>
>
> Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3, other than that
> they will cease to be LWGs.
>
> While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to
> be done using the process defined by the SCWG.
>
> The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these.
>
> If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not
> specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and
> the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the
> Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly.
>
>
>
> If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it
> isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the
> feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming,
> such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists,
> allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but
> that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of
> effort in to do it right.
>
>
>
> As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for
> months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw
> 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe
> the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne
> agreed."
>
>
>
> There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and
> that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a
> ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the
> Chair brought to resolve.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
> Exactly right.  To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we
> allow “Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early
> discussions in the Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206.
> I chose the name “Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using
> the term “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed
> Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it
> clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups
> would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum.
> There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance
> Change participants.
>
>
>
> I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define
> Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on
> that.  In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation
> and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3
> (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting
> next month).  Those who don’t like the process can always vote no.
>
>
>
> I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into
> account the comments already received.
>
>
>
> *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List <public at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network
> Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of
> previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences.
>
>    - https://cabforum.org/2018/07/12/2018-07-12-scwg-minutes/ where the
>    ambiguity on how to form subcommittees was first raised
>    -
>    https://cabforum.org/2018/07/26/2018-07-26-server-certificate-working-group-minutes/
>    where the members expressed their opinion (via doodle poll) and the
>    majority chose to resolve this ambiguity by requiring ballots for the
>    formation of subcommittees in the SCWG.
>
> IMO, members are in favor of ballots to resolve issues like this. The
> definition of a subcommittee is broad enough and described in 5.3.1(e) "to
> address any of such CWG's business". It is very clear to me that both
> proposed subcommittees (validation and NetSec) are within the SCWG's scope.
>
> I thought we had agreed that until the SCWG charter is amended (to include
> language around subcommittees, election of officers and other issues that
> were discussed in previous calls), we would proceed with using ballots as
> the agreed-upon decision making process. I understand that Kirk's proposed
> ballots (as a process) are aligned with this decision. The content of the
> ballots (whether or not we will name "chairs", etc for subcommittees) is
> debatable and under discussion.
>
> As a general comment, I would like to note that the majority of
> Contributions were taking place during "Legacy Working Groups" with the
> previous governance. These "officially declared" teams had great momentum,
> produced a lot of improvements to the Forum's Guidelines, met regularly and
> were coordinated by one or two people that facilitated the discussions and
> provided the necessary logistics (calendar scheduling, agendas, minutes and
> so on). I can't imagine that the Governance change intended to make things
> so hard to form these currently-called "subcommittees". In case of doubt,
> ballots were always a good way forward, *unless *they propose something
> that is *clearly against* the Bylaws.
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
> On 14/9/2018 3:43 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:39 PM Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the list, Wayne.  Responses inline.  Remember, a Subcommittee
> has no real power, it’s just a place where members interested in a subject
> who want to be involved in drafting proposals for the whole SCWG can work
> together – we have 10+ years of successful experience with this approach,
> and are just continuing it at the SCWG level.
>
>
>
> [Wayne] To respond to Kirk's question about subjects that need to be
> better defined, here is a start:
>
>
>
> * Do Subcommittees have Chairs and if so how are they appointed?  [KH]
> Yes, for the same reason we had Chairs for old-style Working Groups of the
> Forum.  There is no change here (BTW, our Bylaws didn’t include rules for
> old WG Chairs either – somehow it all worked out).  Dean has correctly
> listed what a Chair does.
>
>
>
> This answer doesn't suffice, because our new Bylaws do change things
> substantially, and the reasons for the old structure of WGs doesn't just
> naturally change to SCWGs.
>
>
>
> * How are Subcommittees chartered? (are they chartered?)  [KH] Same as in
> the past when we created old-style WGs of the Forum – by ballots, in this
> case SCWG ballots.  No change here.
>
>
>
> This is half correct, but misses the point of the question. The SCWG is
> responsible for defining how Subcommittees are created, per our Bylaws -
> and it has not. Yet.
>
>
>
> * What are the required contents of a Subcommittee charter?  [KH] Same as
> in the past when we created old-style WGs of the Forum – by ballot
> language.  We never had problems in drafting the ballots that created old
> WGs of the Forum – see Ballots 109, 128, 138, 143, 165, and 203.  No change
> here.  What problem do you see from following our past procedure?
>
>
>
> Obviously, there's nothing you can point to support this interpretation,
> and your interpretation itself isn't supported by the Bylaws, because the
> SCWG does not define what you just stated.
>
>
>
>
>
> * How are Subcommittees operated?  [KH] In the same fashion as old WGs of
> the Forum were operated – teleconferences and informal procedures.  No
> change here.
>
>
>
> Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed path,
> but this is not the defined path.
>
>
>
>
>
> * What information is public/private? Do they have their own mailing
> lists?  [KH] Same as the way information was handled for the old WGs of the
> Forum – I think old WG information has always been posted to the Public
> list, so the new Subcommittees will simply post to the SCWG list, which is
> public.  No change here.
>
>
>
> Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed path,
> but this is not the defined path.
>
>
>
> * How are Subcommittees dissolved?  [KH] In the same fashion as old WGs of
> the Forum were handled.  If a Subcommittee has no work to do, it can stop
> meeting until it has more work, or I suppose we can have a new ballot to
> dissolve the Subcommittee, if we care.  Most Subcommittees will have
> ongoing work to do (Validation, NetSec), so should be perpetual.  We may
> create other Subcommittees that should have a specific termination date in
> the ballot that creates the Subcommittee it if we believe that is
> appropriate, as we did once in the past.  No change here.
>
>
>
> Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed path,
> but this is not the defined path.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Public mailing list
>
> Public at cabforum.org
>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/e8382526/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Public mailing list