CWG subcommittee is just that - a subgroup of the SCWG. The
other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the
establishment of subcommittees.
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/l
The voting period for Ballot SC6 has ended and the ballot has passed. Here are
the results.
Voting by CAs – 23 votes total including abstentions
23 Yes votes: Actalis, Amazon, Buypass, Camerfirma, Certigna (DHIMYOTIS),
Certinomis, certSIGN, Certum (Asseco), CFCA, Chunghwa Telecom, Comodo CA,
curity Requirements (NCSSRs).
>>
>>
>> *Out of Scope: *No provision.
>>
>> *Deliverables: *The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or
>> more documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal
>> security standards within the scope de
bgroup of the SCWG. The
other is that the SCWG does not yet have a defined process for the
establishment of subcommittees.
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-
gt;
>
> Is this Deliverable correct? Is that scope correct? The previous WG
> produced (only after significant prodding) a statement about 'options' -
> which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now
> about concrete recommendations for changes, a
Good analysis, Wayne, but… I think you left one factor out.
Yes, Bylaw 5.3.1(e) says a Chartered Working Group may create subcommittees
“according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter”. The SCWG
Charter does authorize ballots, and includes a voting structure for ballots.
Mozilla votes Yes on ballot Forum-2.
- Wayne
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM Ben Wilson via Public
wrote:
> *Ballot Forum-2 - Chair and Vice-Chair Term Extensions*
>
>
>
> Ben Wilson of DigiCert calls the following proposed ballot to be published
> for discussion and comment by the CABF
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:50 PM Tim Hollebeek
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. This was
> actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that
> the
Google votes YES on Ballot Forum-2 - Chair and Vice-Chair Term Extensions.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:12 PM Ben Wilson via Public
wrote:
> VOTING HAS STARTED.
>
>
>
> DigiCert votes “YES”
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson via Public
>
Hmm. Thanks for pointing out my error about 5.3.4.
Let’s all vote in favor of SC9 and be done with it.
-Tim
From: Wayne Thayer
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:11 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List ; Ryan Sleevi
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:50 PM Tim Hollebeek
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).",
'options' -
> which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now
> about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to
> note what is in scope or out of scope.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA,
>
e a defined process for the
establishment of subcommittees.
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-- next part --
An HTML attachment
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
options' -
> which was to modifying the existing NCSSRs. It seems like we're talking now
> about concrete recommendations for changes, and it seems more relevant to
> note what is in scope or out of scope.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the deliverable affirmatively stating "will serve CA,
> auditors, a
ers".
>
>
>
> However, there's other, more fundamental problems. Most notable is that
> Subcommittees aren't established to have Chairs - the point of the rework
> of the Bylaws was to make it clearer what activities are done and how they
> fit, and a SCWG subcommittee is just tha
I haven't got any influence in these proceedings at all but I feel that
maybe the forum could use another platform for ballots.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:50 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <
servercert...@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>
> As no additional typos or mistakes appear to have been found
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public <
public@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
VOTING HAS STARTED.
DigiCert votes "YES"
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
via Public
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:35 PM
To: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot Forum-2 - Chair and Vice-Chair Term
As no additional typos or mistakes appear to have been found in the proposed
redline, Ballot FORUM-4 v2 is hereby withdrawn, and this new Ballot FORUM-4
v3 submitted in its place. Apologies for not including the latest ETSI
fixes; I really wanted to include them, but I'm just worried that
Ryan,
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
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
Disig votes „Yes“ on Ballot SC6 version 3.
Regards
Peter
From: Public On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:54 PM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 -
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out every time it’s come up, there’s no support in
the Bylaws for these additional obstacles to the Validation Working Group’s
clearly expressed choice of option (a).
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:37
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
That's a fairly broad misrepresentation. It hasn't been stalemated - it's
that someone who said they'd work on it has not made any apparent effort to
put forward.
Since that conversation in July, in which members agreed upon the problem
statement and proposed path forward, no actual concrete
This discussion is no longer productive – we have been stalemated for two
months or so, and I don’t think most members agree with your approach. It
would probably be best for just to just vote no on the ballots, but *also*
volunteer to work with Ben to amend the Bylaws in whatever way you
Kirk,
You have a real opportunity to resolve these issues, and I hope you will
incorporate that feedback into consideration. There are now multiple
threads, in part because some of your forked replies, but to summarize
where we stand:
Nothing in the Bylaws requires resolution on/by October 3,
Exactly right. To add one other point – I am the one who proposed we allow
“Subcommittees” in the new Working Groups during the early discussions in the
Governance Change Working Group that led to Ballot 206. I chose the name
“Subcommittee” to avoid confusion (as we were now using the term
Put it differently: Why do we need to establish a Subcommittee? What's the
pressing or urgent need that's trying to be met? Can we resolve that
quickly?
I don't think that language, as a proposal, really resolves the issues. If
the answer is providing more clarity for SCWG's Subcommittees, yes,
My ballot that I didn’t get around to writing would have had something like:
“The current Bylaws lack clarity and precision about the functioning of
subcommittees. Until such a time as that is corrected, subcommittees created
from LWGs shall operate in the same manner as pre-governance
Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
notes.
That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like"
LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee
can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the
Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks, including a
complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR protections.
In my opinion, there’s already way, way too much going on in private that would
be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can
Subcommittees most certainly do have chairs, as they are the same as LWGs
unless stated otherwise. And I dare you to find text in the Bylaws that says
“Subcommittees don’t have chairs”, because it’s not there.
-Tim
From: Public On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Thursday,
For the record, I’m in favor of making it explicitly clear that the scope
remains the same.
If you’re making changes, feel free to also add Wayne as Validation WG Vice
Chair, since he already runs the meetings for me when I’m traveling.
-Tim
From: Kirk Hall
Sent: Thursday,
TrustCor votes YES on Ballot SC6v3.
Regards,
Neil
> On 31 Aug 2018, at 20:51, Wayne Thayer via Servercert-wg
> wrote:
>
> Here is version 3 of this ballot, incorporating changes to v2 suggested by
> Bruce and Ryan (thanks!).
>
> I noticed that our current bylaws have reverted back to a
CFCA votes YES on Ballot SC6 v3.
CFCA
Yi Zhang
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Wayne
Thayer via Servercert-wg
Sent: fredag 31. august 2018 21:52
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [Servercert-wg] Ballot
Chunghwa Telecom votes YES to Ballot SC6 v3.
Li-Chun Chen
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Wayne
Thayer via Servercert-wg
Sent: fredag 31. august 2018 21:52
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject:
Buypass votes YES.
Regards
Mads
From: Servercert-wg On Behalf Of Wayne
Thayer via Servercert-wg
Sent: fredag 31. august 2018 21:52
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation
Following-up on these comments, here is a proposed red-lined version
that fixes the ETSI references.
Dimitris.
On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira via Public wrote:
Tim,
I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in
all CABF documents. These TSs have not been
Tim,
I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and 101 456) in all CABF
documents. These TSs have not been updated for years, they don´t reflect the
current requirements of the CABF.
Regards
De: Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-boun...@cabforum.org] en
41 matches
Mail list logo
