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 5.3.1(d) and (e).
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 (c) continuing in effect without > change for 6 months following such approval. For an LWG to continue beyond > such 6 months, it must have a charter approved as described in Section > 5.3.1 above, as if it was a new Working Group.” > > > > The Validation Working Group has expressed its intention to become a > Subcommittee at every opportunity. Those who continually seek to deny it > that option are clearly in violation of the Bylaws. > > > > Once again, the Validation Working Group has selected option (a). If we > want a Ballot to confirm that, we can have a ballot, but I will not allow > members to obstruct the LWG’s right to choose option (a), a right the > Working Group clearly has, as stated in the Bylaws. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Public <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi > via Public > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:22 PM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CABFPub < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > 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, other than that > they will cease to be LWGs. > > While no longer LWGs, if they choose to be subcommittees, then it has to > be done using the process defined by the SCWG. > > The SCWG has not defined or balloted its process for these. > > If you're proposing that these ballots use an assumed process that is not > specified, we're opposed and remain opposed, because having the Forum and > the Chair make up process continues to undermine the legitimacy of the > Forum and its value, needlessly and irresponsibly. > > > > If you feel it's important to establish these before Oct 3 - which it > isn't, procedurally - then one path you can do that can resolve the > feedback and concerns is to actually spell out the things you are assuming, > such as that subcommittees will produce minutes, operate on public lists, > allow participation, etc. This is not difficult, it's just more work - but > that's the cost of doing things right, you sometimes have to put a bit of > effort in to do it right. > > > > As you can see from those minutes, this has been known to be a problem for > months. The proposal was simple: "Dimitris again noted that new Bylaw > 5.3.1(e) did not provide for a method for creating Subcommittees, and maybe > the Bylaws or Charter should be amended to provide a method, and Wayne > agreed." > > > > There's still no definition for how the Subcommittee will operate, and > that should be in the ballot to form it, since the Chair did not propose a > ballot based on the Doodle Poll that the Chair conducted for a matter the > Chair brought to resolve. > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:08 PM Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 “Working Group” to refer to the main group that needed > Subcommittees to do preliminary work on ballot proposal), but I made it > clear at the time that the new Subcommittees of the new Working Groups > would function exactly the same as the old Working Groups of the Forum. > There was no confusion or argument on this point among the Governance > Change participants. > > > > I personally don’t see the need for yet more work to further define > Subcommittees in the Bylaws, but will not object if others want to work on > that. In the meantime, we need to move forward on creating the Validation > and NetSec Subcommittees so they can continue their work after October 3 > (and can meet as part of the Tuesday agenda at the Shanghai F2F meeting > next month). Those who don’t like the process can always vote no. > > > > I will present a revised draft of SC9 and SC10 later today taking into > account the comments already received. > > > > *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:43 PM > *To:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion > List <[email protected]>; Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network > Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > 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]> > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
