Subject: CAcert Code Development list.
List archive
- From: Mario Lipinski <mario AT cacert.org>
- To: cacert-devel AT lists.cacert.org
- Cc: ulrich AT cacert.org, 'Ian G' <iang AT cacert.org>
- Subject: Re: strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:25:57 -0700
- Authentication-results: lists.cacert.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i= AT cacert.org; dkim-asp=none
- Organization: CAcert (Board member, Organisation Assurance Germany, Wiki/Issue admin)
Am 16.03.10 04:03, schrieb
ulrich AT cacert.org:
scenario #2:
4 assurances, 4 times 35 pts
1 assurance, 1 times 0 pts
Arbitration result: 4 times 35 pts are wrong
The question now, are the assurers allowed in scenario #2
to re-enter the assurances ?
What is with the one 0 pts assurance from assurer #5
in scenario #1. Have this to be removed from the records?
As long as they have the information they can assure on their CAP form and just misread them before they could.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Mario Lipinski
Board member, E-Mail:
mario AT cacert.org
Organisation Assurer (Germany), Internet: http://www.cacert.org
Wiki/Issue admin
CAcert
Support CAcert: http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=13
http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/HelpingCAcert
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
- strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT, Ian G, 03/16/2010
- RE: strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT, ulrich, 03/16/2010
- Re: strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT, Ian G, 03/16/2010
- Re: strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT, Mario Lipinski, 03/18/2010
- RE: strawman proposal: add a comment field to the Assurer's entry into WoT, ulrich, 03/16/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.