Policy-Discussion

[Jens Paul <cacert AT canyonsport.de>]

Hi!

> Jens Paul wrote:
>   
> > Hello again,
> >
> > it seems that the discussion about "under 18 Assurers" endet without a 
> > conclusion.
> >
> > If I got it right, the majority liked the idea that "under 18" Assurers 
> > should only be allowed to assure people if their Assurance is 
> > countersigned by an "over 18" Assurer guardian.
> >     
>
>
> I was wondering whether the Assurance itself was 
> counter-signed, or whether there is a once-only Guardian 
> Assurer who signs the Youth Assurer into the system?
>   

Well, if you only "sign the youth assurer into the system" what does 
that mean? Are you then liable for any action the youth assurer does? If 
so I'm pretty sure that we won't find any guardians to take such a risk. 
If not so, what's difference to what we have now without an guardian?

I think if we really wanna avoid the missuse by those youth, we need to 
have a guardian sign every single assurance or we won't avoid any 
missuse at all.

Or we go back to not allowing yout assurers ...

> That is, countersigning each form or each individual 
> assurance is tantamount to each Assurance being done by the 
> countersigner.  Whereas the goal is to get the Youth Assurer 
> to do as much work as possible, efficiently, without 
> endangering the overall governance.
>   

Correct. But again, I'm not talking about the 99.9% good youth assurers. 
I'm talking about those 0.1% who may be used by "criminal individuals".

> ( Also, as a further possibility for the distant future, we 
> could say that the Youth Assurer gets 10 points of Assurance 
> Grant for *each* Guardian that he finds. )
>   

OK, than direct question: would YOU in person accept that you are liable 
for ANY fake assurances "youth 1" does? I would even think about 
accepting that if the youth is my own child .... but for a stranger?

> > Can we "write it down" that way? If yes, how could we implement such a 
> > procedure?
> >     
>
>
> The CPS may have something to say about this;  which is to 
> say there might need to be a comment in the CPS.
>
> But, I suspect ideally the place for this is a wiki page 
> that links off the primary Assurance area.  So, in literary 
> terms, an Annex to the Assurance Handbook that might be 
> "Guidelines for Young Assurers."
>   

Oh, you mean that wiki which calls itself "unoffical FAQ"? That one 
totally outdated? That one were the core team always says "it doesn't 
matter what's in the wiki, only the policys count? Sorry Ian for being 
such direct, but if we really talk about the wiki for such things we 
should make clear that the wiki IS the opinion of CAcert and we need 
some quality control first ...

Greetings
Jens
begin:vcard
fn:Jens Paul
n:Paul;Jens
org:CAcert Inc.
email;internet:cacert AT canyonsport.de
title:Education Officer
version:2.1
end:vcard