Policy-Discussion

[Jens Paul <cacert AT canyonsport.de>]

Hi!
> Jens Paul wrote:
>
>   
> > Yes, I asked especially for situations when someone is for example 
> > "doing somethin wrong" during an assurance. If then an experienced 
> > assurer is correcting him and he did not accept it because "I can do 
> > what I want, this is a community". So the question was something like that:
> >
> >   * Can we say that "senior assurers" / officers can deal with minor
> >     issues if time is a problem IF they are 100% about it? It means
> >     that we give them some "authority" but within tiny borders?
> >   * Can we say that they are allowed to HOLD an assurance and file a
> >     dispute? Just filing a dispute without the right to hold the
> >     assurance may not be sufficent enough.
> >     
>
>
> I suspect ... that given the ability of any assurer to 
> conduct his assurance privately and remote from the event 
> ... then it is tricky to apply more "rights" to people at 
> the event than would work outside the event.
>   

That wouldn't be a problem. We were especially talking about the 
situation when 2 assurers are of different opinion. Than the "senior" or 
"officer" should be able to make a binding decission. If someone is 
making a mistake during a private assurance, we have to fix it after ...

> OTOH, it could simply be a convention that the senior 
> assurer on the ground has the ability to HOLD an assurance. 
>   

That's all I wanted :-) Everyone should be able to HOLD an assurance, 
but only a senior / officer should be able to let the process continue.

>   And if an assurer feels strongly enough about this ... 
> then can always walk around the corner and set up another 
> booth ;-)
>   
And that's why someone should be able to forbid that if a single person 
is not behaving ... Let's make an example: If I go to CeBIT, totally 
drunk, start working as an assurer at the CAcert booth and start 
shouting "Fuck off you applicants you ..." then you would say "hey 
people: see, this is the way our assurers behave"? I think in such a 
case someone SHOULD be able to stop such things ...

> In english, we would term this as "a privilege not a right." 
>   
OK, so were is the difference if I say something to someone, or if I 
have the privilege to say something to someone? As long as I do not have 
the right to tell him what to do (or better: what not to do), why should 
he listen? Oh yes, I know, because all people are perfect!

>   That is, the senior assurer on the ground has additional 
> privileges.  By using that word we indicate that it is a 
> soft thing not a hard thing.
>   
If we define "privilege" in a way that others have to listen to him but 
that he is responsible for his actions, OK. If not, again, what's the 
difference?

> > One example I was pointing to is that typically the senior assurers / 
> > officers are very involved into CAcert, knowing the latest 
> > "developments" / decissions made within the core team and the policy 
> > mailing lists, while many "junior" assurers stay to those informations 
> > available in their own language. And we all know that those wiki entries 
> > are typically very outdated.
> >     
>
> Very true.
>
>   

> > That's why I asked for such "authority", but only within those borders. 
> > If such a person is missusing this authority we still can file a dispute 
> > afterwards and for example "punish" him by withdrawing the right to use 
> > such authority.
> >
> > What do you think? I hope that we can have an offical statement before 
> > CeBIT.
> >     
>
>
> I think ultimately it would be up to CAcert to make the 
> decision ... but if the policy group can craft the 
> appropriate text, then that might help.
>   

That's what I wask asking for :-) Just a reminder: less than three weeks 
to go :-)

> Possibly this also signals that it is time to get a little 
> more serious and define what we really mean by the concept 
> of "senior assurer."  In the past, the notion has been just 
> talked about.  Let's push that onto a separate thread?
>   

Agreed, just go on.

> > I try (if possible) to use the "draft version" of my Assurer Training to 
> > train all Assurers at CeBIT before we start (even though we do not have 
> > the obligation to attend such a training yet), so I think we can avoid 
> > most discussions, but still, we should have a clear statement just in case.
> >     
>
>
> Excellent idea ... keep us posted on how it goes.  Assurer 
> Training is very welcome as it helps CAcert establish a 
> minimum standard for its assurance process.
>   
Sure.


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