[cabfpub] Seeking comments on Governance Change outline

[Gervase Markham]

Hi Dean,

On 17/01/17 20:55, Dean Coclin via Public wrote:
> Attached is the outline (pdf) which we are seeking comments,
> suggestions, recommendations (and criticism) from members and the public
> at large.  Comments are due back by Friday, February 17^th 2016. 

Again, thanks to the group for its hard work. Here are my comments:

* "Server Authentication Group" -> "Server Authentication Working Group"
for consistency.

* "However, the WG should show that there are relying parties,
application providers and/or other relevant parties that can participate
in the WG."

-- Do you mean, each WG should have at least the concept of a non-CA
member, and some examples of companies or people who might be in that
class, even if none join?

* What will be the status of WGs like the Governance Reform Working
Group in the new system? Will they be parallel to and at the same level
as e.g. the Code Signing Working Group?

* "[Interested Parties] must indicate which Working Group they wish to
participate in."

-- Are they permitted to change their minds after joining? If so, what's
the point of making them state it up front? Or do you just mean that
"Like other members, Interested Parties are only part of the Working
Groups they explicitly sign up to"?

* "[Cross-WG requirements] can be reviewed on a Working Group by Working
Group basis and inserted into the charter of each new Working Group."

-- Would it not make more sense to have a "Common" policy or charter
which applied to all WGs, which contained these terms? Having to copy
them about everywhere leads to lots of potential for errors, version
skew etc. If requirements are to be common, they should be voted on at
Forum level and included in this document, and the charter of each WG
can incorporate "the latest version" by reference. Thus all WGs would be
bound by them.

* 2 c), "i.e." should probably be "e.g.".

* 2 d) seems to have a missing full stop.

* "The Forum will have the power to create Subcommittees to study issues
that come up from time to time."

-- Can you give an example of the sort of thing this might cover?


This all seems to be moving in the right general direction. I look
forward to seeing the proposed draft Bylaws :-)

Gerv