[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Draft SMIME Working Group Charter

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed Feb 6 17:57:05 UTC 2019

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:41 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>

> There are many SDOs that I participate in that are able to manage their
> priorities effectively without hardcoding them into a charter.  In fact,
> it’s more common than not.  In my experience, SDOs that require a
> re-charter every time they want to discuss a new topic is indeed very
> disruptive and high overhead.

I've tried to provide very detailed answers to support the position I'm
advocating. Could you discuss more what parts you believe are disruptive
and high overhead? Is it because there's disagreement on embracing the
topic and/or disagreement on the appropriateness of the timing?

While there are many SDOs, I will highlight that the SDOs that have been
most successful for our line of work - that is, groups such as IETF and W3C
- have fairly consistency and explicitly required 'tight' charters with
explicit deliverables, as a way of measuring and ensuring progress. Groups
that have tended to have very broad charters - which include ETSI and OASIS
- tend to get extremely mired down in debates, much like the one we're
having now, rather than focusing on the concrete deliverables.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20190206/0d08b33c/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20190206/0d08b33c/attachment-0003.gif>

More information about the Public mailing list