[cabfpub] Validation WG

[Dean Coclin]

It’s an easy change to setup these calls to be recorded, however, it’s up to the chair of that group to agree to such change and subsequently making that recording public. 

 

I don’t think conducting all WG business on the list is productive or efficient and it would have likely taken longer than 1.5 years to come up with ballot 169 if it was done that way.

 

I’m sure the group can either decide to record or have an electronic transcription if the concerns noted below are deemed significant.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Validation WG

 

Jeremy,

 

Just to check - I don't recall there being a formal ballot to terminate the WG (as per section 5.2 of the bylaws), so a few quick and easy process questions:

 

1) Do you expect that the continuation of the Validation WG will be conducted in accordance with the scope and deliverables of Ballot 143 ( https://cabforum.org/2015/02/18/ballot-143-formalization-validation-working-group/ ), which established the Validation WG?

2) Do you intend to propose a Ballot to terminate the Validation WG upon the completion of some deliverable?

 

Considering that the Validation WG will be having phone meetings, for the sake of members' protection with respect to our IPR policy, and the fact that Participants Contributions cannot be Excluded from the RF license if incorporated into a FG/FMG and were recorded in the minutes as such, does the Validation WG intend to adhere to (a) and (b) of Section 5.2, namely:

(a) Draft and final agendas for Working Group meetings, Forum Meetings and Forum Teleconferences (including any sub-groups or committees).

(b) Final minutes of Forum Meetings and Forum Teleconferences (including minutes of any sub-groups or committees), and minutes of all Working Group teleconferences and meetings. 

 

 

Given the potential sensitivities, I think we would be more inclined to propose a ballot to terminate the Validation WG unless we can receive assurances that the bylaws' process will be followed with respect to minutes, such that we can accurately and completely track the provenance of any proposals put forward by the members of the Validation WG, given that, to date, it seems matters within the Validation WG have been the only ones which have triggered Exclusion Notices. Given this, the Validation WG should take appropriate precautions to ensure that calls are recorded, minutes are complete and accurate, and no suggestions are incorporated into any ballots without the ability to track who contributed what, and when.

 

Alternatively, conducting all matters on the list, without any phone calls, would be sufficient to ensure that all members Contributions are reflected as such, as per 8.3 (c) of our IPR policy:

c. “Contribution” means material, including Draft Guidelines, Draft Guideline text, and modifications to other Contributions, made verbally or in a tangible form of expression (including in electronic media) which is provided by a Participant in the process of developing a Draft Guideline for the purpose of incorporating such material into a Draft Guideline or a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline. For a verbal contribution to be deemed a Contribution hereunder it must be memorialized within approved meeting minutes of the CAB Forum.

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

During the face-to-face we discussed restarting the validation working group. Please let me know if you are interested and the agenda items you’d like to discuss. We plan on starting the meetings at the time slot previously occupied by the code signing working group (9 Pacific). 

 

Thanks,

Jeremy


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161107/759956d7/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161107/759956d7/attachment-0001.p7s>