Right - we put the working group on pause pending the resolution of ballot 179. The scope, charter, etc. would all be the exact same as before. There's already a requirement to supply minutes for each meeting - I just failed to do so. I'll make sure I provide them within a week of each meeting from now on.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Public Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 10:38 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Dean Coclin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG In my opinion, this working group was properly chartered in Ballot 143 (which I note Mozilla voted YES). The working group was never formally terminated but rather was put in a "dormant" status since the production of ballot 169. I think working group members needed a break after 1.5 years of work. Restarting the work of this group shouldn't require a ballot unless the scope has changed. We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather, deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group. Code Signing was a different issue as I believe the argument there was there wasn't a formal ballot to charter the group. Dean -----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:06 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG On 07/11/16 16:46, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote: > During the face-to-face we discussed restarting the validation working > group. Please let me know if you are interested and the agenda items > you’d like to discuss. We plan on starting the meetings at the time > slot previously occupied by the code signing working group (9 Pacific). Not wanting to be a process geek, but does it require a ballot to restart a WG? Checking the wiki, it seems like we didn't follow the Bylaws when we created it and outline a "Working Group expiration date" (Bylaws section 5.3): https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/143%20-%20Formalization%20of%20validation%20working%20group Did we raise this issue before in the context of this WG, or not? (I know it came up in the context of the Code Signing WG...) Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
