[cabfpub] Seeking comments on Governance Change outline
gerv at mozilla.org
Fri Feb 10 09:06:28 UTC 2017
On 09/02/17 21:49, Dean Coclin wrote:
>>> Yes, what we are saying is that there will likely be CAs as one group, and there should be another constituency, be it browsers or ASVs. If none join, there's not much point of having a "working" group.
It seems like the current draft is not that strong (perhaps the Bylaws
will be), because it just says that such a group of people should be
demonstrated to exist, not that at least one of them should have joined
before the WG is viable.
> -- 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"?
>>> Yes, they can change their minds. As you state, the purpose is that they are only part of the groups they explicitly sign up for.
OK; I'm sure the Bylaw draft will make this clear.
>>> Good idea, we will discuss that at our next meeting
> * "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?
>>> For example, we recently had a "task force" which was a subset of members to help get some things clarified for the greater membership.
Er, that's a bit vague. Which task force did you mean?
These subcommittees are Forum subcommittees, or WG subcommittees? I
assumed the former, which is why I'm asking; I can see a clear use for
More information about the Public