Please let me know when the Governance WG meeting will be at the F2F and provide a dial-in number. Thanks.
Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Begin forwarded message: From: [email protected] Subject: Public Digest, Vol 70, Issue 11 Date: February 3, 2018 at 5:28:56 AM PST To: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] Send Public mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings (Ryan Sleevi) 2. Re: Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings (Dean Coclin) 3. Re: Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings (Gervase Markham) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 21:00:59 -0500 From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>, "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings Message-ID: <CACvaWvaCyDY=5d+fiyt94yqw-gpxrvnwidqtujxaiog_cnc...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon, VA > on Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea ? but we will have to push other WG > meetings to later, maybe Wednesday morning. *Does anyone object to this > plan?* > > > > On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested > Parties at the special VWG meeting ? I have pasted in the relevant part of > Bylaw 3.2 below. If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I would have > said ?IPs can only come to the full Forum meetings at the invitation of the > Chair, but they can come to Working Group meetings (teleconferences and > face-to-face meetings) without an invitation from the Chair ? it?s at their > option.? > Bylaws 4.2 (Finances) Bylaws 5.1(a) Bylaws 5.4 > Or would it be better if we permanently adopt my interpretation above ? > that no invitation from the Chair is needed for Interested Parties to > attend WG meetings at their own option? > I don't believe that interpretation is consistent with those remarks. Using your interpretation, it would mean that WG meetings are distinct from Forum meetings, therefore Amazon is hosting (separately) the meeting of the Forum and the meeting of individual WGs. This applies to both physical meetings, such as the upcoming F2F, and to teleconferences. Similarly, I'm surprise you would advocate for such an interpretation, given your previously expressed concerns with respects to the IP Policy, and given the issues around reliably providing minutes for WG meetings to the Public List (as required under 5.2(a) and supported by the definitions on Page 13 as being unambiguously [email protected] ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180202/65d02de7/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 03:38:29 +0000 From: Dean Coclin <[email protected]> To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>, "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings Message-ID: <bl2pr14mb0899fe38e514f65da301528c92...@bl2pr14mb0899.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The original intent of the bylaws stating that people other than members needed a chair invitation to attend F2F meetings was, as you state, to insure the meeting size didn't get out of control lest we need an auditorium for the meetings. The WG meetings are a part of the F2F. I think it's clear that anyone other than a member cannot attend w/o an invitation. Having said that, according to the wiki, we are at 34 signed up for the meeting, hence there is capacity for additional people (assuming there isn't a rush of sign ups the last week). I would encourage members that are attending to insure they are on the wiki list by next week. Regarding the all day validation group meeting, I think that is fine, given that they have some critical items to discuss. Would it be possible to also hold the Governance meeting the same day? I don't think many of the Governance people are in the Validation group and hence we can be more efficient by doing those two on Tuesday. You could then do a policy and net sec working group on Weds. Just a suggestion. Dean From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:50 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon, VA on Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea - but we will have to push other WG meetings to later, maybe Wednesday morning. Does anyone object to this plan? On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested Parties at the special VWG meeting - I have pasted in the relevant part of Bylaw 3.2 below. If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I would have said "IPs can only come to the full Forum meetings at the invitation of the Chair, but they can come to Working Group meetings (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings) without an invitation from the Chair - it's at their option." That's what I thought sub (a) meant by "becoming involved" in Working Groups, whereas I believed sub (c) only applies to participation in "Forum Teleconferences and Forum Meetings" - which I thought meant the meetings of the full Forum itself. As I recall, we didn't want the full Forum meetings to grow to 100 people or more, perhaps with many more Interested Parties in attendance than CAs and browsers - that seemed unmanageable from a logistics standpoint. Hence the need for a little gatekeeping and specific invitations. Here is the language from the Bylaws: Interested Parties may participate in Forum activities in the following ways: (a) By becoming involved in Working Groups, (b) By posting to the Public Mail List, and (c) By participating in those portions of Forum Teleconferences and Forum Meetings to which they are invited by the Forum Chair relating to their areas of special expertise or the subject of their Working Group participation. In any case, I will happily "invite" any Interested Party who wants to be involved in the VWG meeting on March 6, if necessary. Or would it be better if we permanently adopt my interpretation above - that no invitation from the Chair is needed for Interested Parties to attend WG meetings at their own option? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180203/8b3c3d30/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:28:51 +0100 From: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 03/02/18 02:49, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon, > VA on Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea ? but we will have to push other > WG meetings to later, maybe Wednesday morning.? *_Does anyone object to > this plan?_* Not at all. In the last meeting, we had spare time at the end of the second day anyway. > On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested > Parties at the special VWG meeting ? I have pasted in the relevant part > of Bylaw 3.2 below.? If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I > would have said ?IPs can only come to the full Forum meetings at the > invitation of the Chair, but they can come to Working Group meetings > (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings) without an invitation from > the Chair ? it?s at their option.? I would read this as the variant expressed by others - "Forum Meetings" includes all aspects of the meeting (because any part could become overcrowded), and so clause c) trumps clause a) for WG meetings during Forum Meetings, and so you need to explicitly invite people. But I hope that task will not be too onerous :-) Gerv ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 70, Issue 11 **************************************
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
