On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:50 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne, > > > > My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not > 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special. > 5.3.4 says "...converting to a Subcommittee under a CWG pursuant to Section 5.3.1(e).", so I don't understand how you can argue that 5.3.1(e) does not apply to a 5.3.4 conversion. This was actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was > intended that the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or > impede the functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that > obstructing the work of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of > Conduct as a Code of Conduct violation). As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will > probably support any and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, > as long as it doesn’t impede the important work of the Validation WG. > Though the suggestion that it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs > is completely bizarre. I’ve never been a member of a standards working > group or committee that didn’t, and I’ve been on **WAY** too many of > them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > > > We are in peaceful agreement here. I suspect there are vast differences of opinion on what a Subcommittee actually is, ranging from "that thing we used to call a Working Group" to "some members who want to informally work together on a project". I will note that my recollection is that you were on both the VWG call > before July 3rd when the proposal to exercise option (a) was discussed, > and the VWG call immediately after July 3rd when the proposal to choose > option (a) was discussed again, and didn’t object to that course of action > at that time. It’s not just a declaration of the Chair, it was the > unanimous consensus of the WG, twice discussed. > > > Correct, and I am not objecting to the VWG making the declaration. If I am objecting to anything now, it's that the Bylaws say that the SCWG must somehow "approve" the formation of a Subcommittee. > > > I actually agree that the process for new Subcommittees (like the Network > Security Subcommittee) leaves a lot to be desired, and should be improved > by a ballot to improve the clarity of the Bylaws and/or SCWG charter with > respect to creation of new Subcommittees. However I agree with Virginia > that the SCWG has the right to create subcommittees. In the absence of > explicit rules in the charter, the SCWG ballot rules seems to be the right > way to create new SCWG Subcommittees. Members are free to vote as they > chose on such ballots. But they are not free to obstruct the business of > the Forum on procedural grounds that are unsupported by the Bylaws, and > they are not free to deny members or working groups the rights and options > they have that are clearly expressed in the Bylaws. > > > Sounds like we are in agreement that ballot SC9 should proceed. > > > I will file Code of Conduct complaints if I have to, but would prefer not > to. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Wayne Thayer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 3:21 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Ryan, > > > > I am not Ryan, but... > > > > Unfortunately, as a native Californian, I am a very non-violent person, > and the Code of Conduct explicitly forbids violence, so can we be in > utterly non-violent agreement about the fact that the Validation WG is > already an SCWG subcommittee? 😝 That will make it clear we have time to > discuss rules about how subcommittees function and come to a consensus > about what the right solution is. > > > > I partially agree with you. The bylaws section 5.3.1(e) says in part that > "A CWG-created Subcommittee needs to be approved by the CWG itself > according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter..." Since > there is no approval process defined in the SCWG charter, one could argue > that any form of approval is acceptable. However, I don't consider the LWG > Chair's declaration that the LWG is converting to a Subcommittee to be a > form of approval by the CWG. So I still think it would be best to put this > one to a vote. > > > > In the meantime, I would like to once again re-iterate that the Validation > Subcommittee will, to the best of its ability, continue functioning as it > historically has. That includes publicly available discussions, agendas, > and meeting notes. We have a lot of very important work we are doing, and > it is important we are able to continue making progress. > > > > I completely agree. > > > > -Tim > > > > *From:* Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM > *To:* Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> > *Cc:* CABFPub <[email protected]>; Kirk Hall < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the > Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG > > > > 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 > > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
