[Servercert-wg] Participation Proposal for Revised SCWG Charter

[Ben Wilson]

Thanks, Tim.

All,

I will look closer at the distribution and use of software for browsing the
internet securely, instead of participation metrics. There is at least one
source, StatCounter (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share), that
purports to measure use of browsing software, both globally and regionally.
Would it be worthwhile to explore distribution by region and come up with a
reasonable threshold?  Can we rely on StatCounter, or should we look
elsewhere?

Thanks,

Ben

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:30 AM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> I have a meaningful comment.
>
>
>
> I don’t want to ever have to discuss or judge whether someone’s comment is
> “meaningful” or not, and I don’t think incentivizing people to post more
> comments than they otherwise would is helpful.
>
>
>
> I also think getting the chairs involved in any way in discussing whether
> a member representative did or did not have a medical condition during a
> particular time period is an extremely bad idea.
>
>
>
> Given that the original issue was trying to determine whether a
> certificate consumer is in fact a legitimate player in the ecosystem or
> not, I would suggest that exploring metrics like market share might be far
> more useful.  Metrics like participation are rather intrusive and onerous,
> except to those who are trying to game them, and those trying to game such
> metrics will succeed with little or no effort.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> Fischer via Servercert-wg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:23 AM
> *To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <
> servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Participation Proposal for Revised SCWG
> Charter
>
>
>
> Dear Ben,
>
>
>
> Mandatory participation has in my experience never resulted in more or
> better discussions. People will dial into the telco and let it run in the
> background to “earn the credits”.
>
>
>
> Also, what would happen after the 90 day suspension? Would the
> organization be removed as a CA/B member?
>
>
>
> Rgds
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Wilson via Servercert-wg
> *Sent:* Freitag, 7. Juli 2023 21:59
> *To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <
> servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [Servercert-wg] Participation Proposal for Revised SCWG Charter
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Here is a draft participation proposal for the SCWG to consider and
> discuss for inclusion in a revised SCWG Charter.
>
>
>
> #.  Participation Requirements to Maintain Voting Privileges
>
>
>
> (a) Attendance.  The privilege to vote “Yes” or “No” on ballots is
> suspended for 90 days if a Voting Member fails to meet the following
> attendance requirement over any 365-day period:
>
>    - 10% of SCWG meetings for Voting Members located in time zones offset
>    by UTC +5 through UTC +12
>    - 30% of SCWG meetings for Voting Members located in all other time
>    zones
>
> (b) Meaningful Comments.  Posting a Meaningful Comment is an alternative
> means of meeting the attendance requirement in subsection (a). A Voting
> Member can earn an attendance credit to make up for each missed meeting by
> posting a Meaningful Comment to the SCWG Public Mail List. Each Meaningful
> Comment is equal to attending one (1) meeting.
>
>
>
> A Meaningful Comment is one that follows the Code of Conduct and provides
> relevant information to the SCWG, such as new information, an insight,
> suggestion, or perspective related to the Scope of the SCWG, or that
> proposes an improvement to the TLS Baseline Requirements or EV Guidelines.
> It can also be something that responds to or builds on the comments of
> others in a meaningful way, or that offers feedback, suggestions, or
> solutions to the issues or challenges raised by the topic of discussion.
>
>
>
> A Meaningful Comment should be both relevant (within the Scope of the
> SCWG or related to the discussion that is taking place on the mailing
> list) and well-supported (clear reasons why the Voting Representative
> believes what they believe and supported by facts, data, or other
> information.)
>
>
>
> (c) A Voting Member that has failed to meet the attendance requirement in
> subsection (a) above is considered an "Inactive Member".  Any Member who
> believes that any other Member is an Inactive Member may report that Member
> on the Forum's Management List by providing specific information about that
> Member's non-participation, and the SCWG Chair shall send written notice
> to the Inactive Member by email within seven (7) calendar days. The notice
> will include a reminder of the requirement to participate and inform the
> Inactive Member of the consequences of not participating.
>
>
>
> (d) Suspension of Voting Privileges. The Inactive Member's privilege to
> vote “Yes” or “No” on any ballot shall be temporarily suspended for a
> period of 90 days from the date of the notice. During the suspension
> period, the Inactive Member may vote “Abstain” on ballots.
>
>
>
> (e) Restoration of Voting Privilege. Voting privileges will be
> automatically restored to the Inactive Member upon attending three
> consecutive meetings. The restoration of voting privileges will be
> effective on the next ballot that enters the voting period after the
> Inactive Member meets the reactivation criteria.
>
>
>
> (f) Exceptional Circumstances. In cases where an Inactive Member can
> demonstrate justifiable reasons for their inability to participate, such as
> medical conditions or other extenuating circumstances affecting their
> Voting Representative(s), the SCWG Chair may review and consider
> reinstating voting privileges on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20230713/d9c1af05/attachment.html>