Good analysis, Wayne, but… I think you left one factor out. Yes, Bylaw 5.3.1(e) says a Chartered Working Group may create subcommittees “according to the approval process set forth in the CWG charter”. The SCWG Charter does authorize ballots, and includes a voting structure for ballots. Ballots SC9 and SC10 will follow that part of the SCWG Charter, and so in my opinion is compliant with Bylaw 5.3.1(e). I don’t think we are required to have a provision in the SCWG Charter that says “Here is how the SCWG will approve new Subcommittees…”.
I suppose we could add one sentence to the SCWG Charter “Subcommittees may be approved by SCWG ballot”, but is that really necessary? The Forum always used ballots in the past to approve new WGs of the Forum, so the precedent is clear. (If you feel strongly on this point, you can propose a ballot to add that sentence to the SCWG Charter for clarity, but it seems unnecessary to me.) The old Bylaws had a Section 5.3 on Working Groups (now, Subcommittees) – see below - and it might be a good idea to add most of these provisions to the Bylaws in the future to apply to all new Subcommittees. But notice how old Working Groups were approved - by Ballot. That’s the procedure Ballots SC9 and SC10 are following to create the Subcommittees of the SCWG. I think we are in compliance with our Bylaws. We will be including Scope, Deliverables, a Chair, posting all messages and documents on a public list, and posting of Minutes in each Ballot, so we are covered. ***** 5.3 Working Groups (from Bylaws v1.8 – no longer in effect) Members may propose by ballot the appointment of Working Groups open to participation by Members and Interested Parties. The ballot shall outline the scope of the Working Group’s activities, including deliverables, any limitations, and Working Group expiration date. Upon approval of the Working Group, the Chair will call for a show of interest in participation by Members, and shall appoint a Working Group Chair from among the interested Members. Upon creation of a Working Group, the Forum will post an invitation to all Interested Parties to participate, and will solicit others with expertise and interest in the Working Group subject matter to become Interested Parties and participate in the Working Group. With the approval of the Chair, Working Groups may establish separate list-servs, wikis, and web pages for their communications, but all such separate list-servs must be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List. Working Groups may meet by teleconference or face-to-face meetings upon approval by the Chair and the Working Group Chair, but the Forum shall not be responsible for the expenses of any such teleconferences or meetings. Working Groups may draft recommendations to be forwarded to the Forum for its consideration, but no recommendations will be considered the product of the Working Group unless approved by two-thirds of all Working Group members who vote on the recommendations. All substantial initial and final drafts of the Working Group product will be posted on the Public Mail List. The Forum shall review the final recommendations from a Working Groups and may approve and implement some or all of the recommendations as appropriate in the Forum’s judgment following the Forum’s regular voting rules. The Forum shall retain the right to amend a Working Group recommendation before approval, but in most cases should first return the proposed amended recommendation to the Working Group for its review and response before voting. The Forum shall not be required to submit any matter to a Working Group, but may itself draft requirements and guidelines without a Working Group in its discretion. From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 12:21 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:54 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: CABFPub <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
