[cabfpub] Ballot FORUM-019 v.2 - Amend Server Certificate Working Group Charter - Discussion Period

[Ben Wilson]

Hi Tobias,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 9:06 AM Tobias S. Josefowitz <tobij at opera.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> ...
>
> However, I think there are different interpretations possible of what
> adherence to the Code of Conduct entails. There is always the question of
> where to draw the line of course, but that is not what I mean. I am more
> concerned that the Code of Conduct opens with:
>
>    "To maintain a professional and productive environment, it is necessary
>    for Members of the Forum to follow the letter and spirit of this Code.
>    This Code applies to all official Forum activities, such as meetings,
>    teleconferences, mailing lists, conferences, and other Forum functions.
>    The Forum is committed to maintaining a professional and respectful
>    environment."
>
> It has further language indicating that it is meant to apply to Forum
> activities, such as "In connection with official Forum activities, all
> Forum participants shall".
>
> At the same time, the Code of Conduct contains some excellent provisions,
> such as "Honesty and integrity are also paramount in all of our actions
> and interactions." That is something that in itself would indeed cover
> many cases of Members whose participation in the Forum might substantially
> erode trust into the WebPKI ecosystem.
>
> Hence I wonder what the intention is here with reference to the Code of
> Conduct. Is it to cover such behaviour as would not be acceptable if it
> were subject to the Code of Conduct, or is the intent here indeed to
> restrict valid reasons for requesting a vote about (voting) membership to
> only the formal membership criteria and behaviour in the Forum (presumably
> during the intial 6 months probationary period) relevant to the Code of
> Conduct?
>

Indeed, the draft charter references the Code of Conduct in section 4(d) to
allow a Member to challenge an applicant's compliance with the Code of
Conduct, including instances where the applicant's prior conduct implicates
a potential erosion of trust in the WebPKI ecosystem. I am not saying that
this proposal perfectly does that, because it is constrained by the current
language in the Bylaws and Code of Conduct, but I believe that this is the
best solution currently available. My hope is that we can edit, strengthen,
and expand the scope of the Code of Conduct in the future. In my opinion,
this is a situation where we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.

Thanks,

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20231117/ad3295b7/attachment.html>