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

Fri Sep 14 20:50:29 UTC 2018

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.  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.

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.

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.

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/82271ddc/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/82271ddc/attachment-0003.p7s>