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

[Wayne Thayer]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:50 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> Wayne,
>
>
>
> My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not
> 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special.
>

5.3.4 says "...converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section
5.3.1(e).", so I don't understand how you can argue that 5.3.1(e) does not
apply to a 5.3.4 conversion.

This was actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was
> intended that the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or
> impede the functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that
> obstructing the work of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of
> Conduct as a Code of Conduct violation).  As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will
> probably support any and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area,
> as long as it doesn’t impede the important work of the Validation WG.
> Though the suggestion that it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs
> is completely bizarre.  I’ve never been a member of a standards working
> group or committee that didn’t, and I’ve been on **WAY** too many of
> them.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
>
>
We are in peaceful agreement here. I suspect there are vast differences of
opinion on what a Subcommittee actually is, ranging from "that thing we
used to call a Working Group" to "some members who want to informally work
together on a project".

I will note that my recollection is that you were on both the VWG call
> before July 3rd when the proposal to exercise option (a) was discussed,
> and the VWG call immediately after July 3rd when the proposal to choose
> option (a) was discussed again, and didn’t object to that course of action
> at that time.  It’s not just a declaration of the Chair, it was the
> unanimous consensus of the WG, twice discussed.
>
>
> Correct, and I am not objecting to the VWG making the declaration. If I am
objecting to anything now, it's that the Bylaws say that the SCWG must
somehow "approve" the formation of a Subcommittee.

>
>
> I actually agree that the process for new Subcommittees (like the Network
> Security Subcommittee) leaves a lot to be desired, and should be improved
> by a ballot to improve the clarity of the Bylaws and/or SCWG charter with
> respect to creation of new Subcommittees.  However I agree with Virginia
> that the SCWG has the right to create subcommittees.  In the absence of
> explicit rules in the charter, the SCWG ballot rules seems to be the right
> way to create new SCWG Subcommittees.  Members are free to vote as they
> chose on such ballots.  But they are not free to obstruct the business of
> the Forum on procedural grounds that are unsupported by the Bylaws, and
> they are not free to deny members or working groups the rights and options
> they have that are clearly expressed in the Bylaws.
>
>
>
Sounds like we are in agreement that ballot SC9 should proceed.

>
>
> I will file Code of Conduct complaints if I have to, but would prefer not
> to.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 3:21 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the
> Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
> public at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
>
>
> I am not Ryan, but...
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, as a native Californian, I am a very non-violent person,
> and the Code of Conduct explicitly forbids violence, so can we be in
> utterly non-violent agreement about the fact that the Validation WG is
> already an SCWG subcommittee? 😝  That will make it clear we have time to
> discuss rules about how subcommittees function and come to a consensus
> about what the right solution is.
>
>
>
> I partially agree with you. The bylaws section 5.3.1(e) says in part that
> "A CWG-created Subcommittee needs to be approved by the CWG itself
> according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter..." Since
> there is no approval process defined in the SCWG charter, one could argue
> that any form of approval is acceptable. However, I don't consider the LWG
> Chair's declaration that the LWG is converting to a Subcommittee to be a
> form of approval by the CWG. So I still think it would be best to put this
> one to a vote.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, I would like to once again re-iterate that the Validation
> Subcommittee will, to the best of its ability, continue functioning as it
> historically has.  That includes publicly available discussions, agendas,
> and meeting notes.  We have a lot of very important work we are doing, and
> it is important we are able to continue making progress.
>
>
>
> I completely agree.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <
> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the
> Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/cf004396/attachment.html>