I think that's what the past suggestion was, and I think it's a good suggestion.
There's no process defined in the CWG for establishment, and I think there's still some confusion among some members about how the new Bylaws look - because we're not establishing CWGs (which have IP considerations), but Subcommittees. We don't need chairs for Subcommittees, there's not a voting process defined for Subcommittees, and it seems there's confusion on Subcommittees relation to minutes and such. I think we say the option is these LWGs is to terminate (as LWGs), and further discussions continue on within the SCWG to resolve - things like ballots for the SCWG and Subcommittees. There's no urgency to convert to a subcommittee or continue as a CWG. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:11 PM Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the > Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I > would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG > left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from > collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure. > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be >> opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten >> nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without >> responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see >> progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues. >> It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental >> flaws. >> >> Concrete feedback is: >> Delete: "These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and >> browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and >> operation of CAs computing infrastructures." >> Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable. >> >> Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair." >> Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just >> meetings of the CWG with focus. >> >> Delete: "The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more >> documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security >> standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the >> existing NCSSRs." >> Rationale: This is a pretty much a non-scope as worded, but worse, >> precludes some of the very activities you want to do. For example, >> reforming existing requirements doesn't establish minimums, so is out of >> scope. >> >> Obviously, that leaves you with nothing left. Hopefully there's something >> concrete you think should remain, and you can suggest improvements there. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM Kirk Hall <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On this ballot and Ballot SC10, I’m only going to consider comments and >>> criticisms that propose specific alternate language that you will support. >>> We have spent two months on creation of Subcommittees that simply continue >>> the work we have been doing., and getting nowhere. Time to finish up! >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you have specific alternate ballot language you want the Members to >>> consider? If so, please post. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:55 PM >>> *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CABFPub < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the >>> Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Kirk Hall via Public < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *Scope: *Revising and improving the Network and Certificate Systems >>> Security 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 defined above, which may be used to >>> modify the existing NCSSRs. These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, >>> auditors and browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the >>> deployment and operation of CAs computing infrastructures. The >>> Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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, 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, and browsers". >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 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 >> [email protected] >> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >> >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
