[cabf_validation] Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

[Tim Hollebeek]

Normally I’m more of a Jira fan, but I just fell in love with Trello, solely because it suggested my name might be Guybrush Threepwood.

 

-Tim

 

From: Wayne Thayer [mailto:wthayer at mozilla.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 5:14 PM
To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

 

I agree with the need for a plan. The deliverables are clear - some number of ballots - but we need to list out and prioritize the work, then figure out how to get it done. Once tasks are defined, we could ask individuals to take ownership or we could schedule a longer working session to jointly complete the work.

 

I find Trello to be a really helpful tool for this type of work. You can create a simple kanban board with a prioritized backlog and tag volunteers for tasks, then move the tasks across the board to completion. Here's an example:

 

https://trello.com/b/NuqJuIcZ/validation-working-group

 

This won't solve all of our problems, but might help us to get organized.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

 

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Doug Beattie via Validation <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Tim and all,

 

Yes, we need a plan!

 

I think the best short term approach is to flush out risks and mitigations of the current methods using Wayne’s Google Doc.  We identified a lot of good thing during the Validation Summit, now we need to think about them.  I’ve created a number of table where we can list risks and mitigations.  If anyone has a better format or approach, I’m not at all tied to this, so go for it.  Getting a better understanding of the current methods will also help us propose new methods that are at least as secure.

 

If half of us could spend 30 minutes on this each week, we’d make great progress, then we could review any important “flagged” items during our calls to wrap up those points and move on.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJiOzYVTpoAPVWDucnp20cTO2PR_cRsHncvkhlrcR10/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJiOzYVTpoAPVWDucnp20cTO2PR_cRsHncvkhlrcR10/edit> 

 

Doug

 

From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Validation
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 7:02 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [cabf_validation] Validation WG: Do we need a plan?

 

 

I’m going to send out an agenda on Tuesday, but I’d like to send out something for people to provide feedback and comment on first.  We only have five hours of discussion before the next forum meeting: March 29, April 12, April 26, May 10, and May 24.

 

The discussion on the last call was great, but my personal feeling was that open ended discussions like that could easily consume all five hours without reaching a conclusion.

 

I’d like to hear comments on how we can structure the discussion to make sure we are productively using our time.  There’s a lot of demand for VWG working group time right now because there are several high priority items, and I personally feel like I’m going to have to be a bit more aggressive about cutting of tangents and time-boxing discussions in order to keeping us moving forward.

 

I rarely get comments either before or after the agenda is posted, and I want to make sure we keep up the momentum from the Validation Summit, so I’d like to hear comments on how we make sure we do that.

 

-Tim


_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180329/06d04b3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180329/06d04b3d/attachment-0001.p7s>