[cabfpub] Validation WG

[Gervase Markham]

On 07/11/16 17:38, Dean Coclin wrote:
> In my opinion, this working group was properly chartered in Ballot
> 143 (which I note Mozilla voted YES).  The working group was never
> formally terminated but rather was put in a "dormant" status since
> the production of ballot 169. I think working group members needed a
> break after 1.5 years of work. Restarting the work of this group
> shouldn't require a ballot unless the scope has changed.

That sounds fine to me under the circumstances. Although I would second
Ryan's call for careful minuting - this is an area that we know has IPR
mines buried in it.

> We haven't been putting in "end dates" for working groups rather,
> deliverables which more accurately reflect the mission of the group.

But as currently chartered, the Validation WG has no end date and no
deliverable whose delivery would terminate the group, right?

Gerv