It looks like a similar conversation was captured in the minutes of
previous Server Certificate WG teleconferences.
* https://cabforum.org/2018/07/12/2018-07-12-scwg-minutes/ where the
ambiguity on how to form subcommittees was first raised
*
https://cabforum.org/2018/07/26/2018-07-26-server-certificate-working-group-minutes/
where the members expressed their opinion (via doodle poll) and the
majority chose to resolve this ambiguity by requiring ballots for
the formation of subcommittees in the SCWG.
IMO, members are in favor of ballots to resolve issues like this. The
definition of a subcommittee is broad enough and described in 5.3.1(e)
"to address any of such CWG's business". It is very clear to me that
both proposed subcommittees (validation and NetSec) are within the
SCWG's scope.
I thought we had agreed that until the SCWG charter is amended (to
include language around subcommittees, election of officers and other
issues that were discussed in previous calls), we would proceed with
using ballots as the agreed-upon decision making process. I understand
that Kirk's proposed ballots (as a process) are aligned with this
decision. The content of the ballots (whether or not we will name
"chairs", etc for subcommittees) is debatable and under discussion.
As a general comment, I would like to note that the majority of
Contributions were taking place during "Legacy Working Groups" with the
previous governance. These "officially declared" teams had great
momentum, produced a lot of improvements to the Forum's Guidelines, met
regularly and were coordinated by one or two people that facilitated the
discussions and provided the necessary logistics (calendar scheduling,
agendas, minutes and so on). I can't imagine that the Governance change
intended to make things so hard to form these currently-called
"subcommittees". In case of doubt, ballots were always a good way
forward, *unless *they propose something that is *clearly against* the
Bylaws.
Dimitris.
On 14/9/2018 3:43 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:39 PM Kirk Hall
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Thanks for the list, Wayne. Responses inline. Remember, a
Subcommittee has no real power, it’s just a place where members
interested in a subject who want to be involved in drafting
proposals for the whole SCWG can work together – we have 10+ years
of successful experience with this approach, and are just
continuing it at the SCWG level.
[Wayne] To respond to Kirk's question about subjects that need to
be better defined, here is a start:
* Do Subcommittees have Chairs and if so how are they appointed?
[KH] Yes, for the same reason we had Chairs for old-style Working
Groups of the Forum. There is no change here (BTW, our Bylaws
didn’t include rules for old WG Chairs either – somehow it all
worked out). Dean has correctly listed what a Chair does.
This answer doesn't suffice, because our new Bylaws do change things
substantially, and the reasons for the old structure of WGs doesn't
just naturally change to SCWGs.
* How are Subcommittees chartered? (are they chartered?) [KH]
Same as in the past when we created old-style WGs of the Forum –
by ballots, in this case SCWG ballots. No change here.
This is half correct, but misses the point of the question. The SCWG
is responsible for defining how Subcommittees are created, per our
Bylaws - and it has not. Yet.
* What are the required contents of a Subcommittee charter? [KH]
Same as in the past when we created old-style WGs of the Forum –
by ballot language. We never had problems in drafting the ballots
that created old WGs of the Forum – see Ballots 109, 128, 138,
143, 165, and 203. No change here. What problem do you see from
following our past procedure?
Obviously, there's nothing you can point to support this
interpretation, and your interpretation itself isn't supported by the
Bylaws, because the SCWG does not define what you just stated.
* How are Subcommittees operated? [KH] In the same fashion as old
WGs of the Forum were operated – teleconferences and informal
procedures. No change here.
Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed
path, but this is not the defined path.
* What information is public/private? Do they have their own
mailing lists? [KH] Same as the way information was handled for
the old WGs of the Forum – I think old WG information has always
been posted to the Public list, so the new Subcommittees will
simply post to the SCWG list, which is public. No change here.
Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed
path, but this is not the defined path.
* How are Subcommittees dissolved? [KH] In the same fashion as
old WGs of the Forum were handled. If a Subcommittee has no work
to do, it can stop meeting until it has more work, or I suppose we
can have a new ballot to dissolve the Subcommittee, if we care.
Most Subcommittees will have ongoing work to do (Validation,
NetSec), so should be perpetual. We may create other
Subcommittees that should have a specific termination date in the
ballot that creates the Subcommittee it if we believe that is
appropriate, as we did once in the past. No change here.
Again, this is not consistent with the Bylaws. This is your proposed
path, but this is not the defined path.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
