Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: [CAcert-Policy] cacert-p] how the military does safety

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: [CAcert-Policy] cacert-p] how the military does safety


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jens Paul <cacert AT canyonsport.de>
  • To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
  • Cc: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT druantia.cacert.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] cacert-p] how the military does safety
  • Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:06:32 +0100
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cacert-policy>
  • List-id: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy.lists.cacert.org>

Hi!
Goodness -- mucking in the details without a Requirements document is pretty out of sequence -- If there is an issue, a good standing rule of life is 'praise publicly, criticize privately' -- There is nothing that would EVER cause me to 'squabble' publicly when saftely to human life is not at risk. The identity of the assurer, and the assurances that person grants are all fully tracable -- solve issues out of the hearing of 'customers'.

Yes, that's like it is supposed to be. Unfortunately not all act in that way. And for such situations I asked about. I heard of one situation (can't remember the exact topi) where an assurer was told to do something by the event organisator and he said he will continue doeing whatever he likes to because there is no one at CAcert who has the right to say something to him. Lukilly there were some other assurers who "helped" the event organisator so the assurer mentioned left. But we do not always have "many" other assurers. This was a minor issue but it showed that we need such a discussion ... and it's just a discussion yet!

I also read the highly legalistic document appearing in the Wiki, at
   http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/EventOrganisation

and was rather sad that it was not marked as a discussion draft -- I certainly do not consider it a statement of CACert policy duly adopted, and others reading it were left with that impression, and concerned that the FOSDEM appearance could not possibly attain that level of formality.
Hmm, it's not my document but I've read it. For me it seems to be just a guideline for big events and not a formal policy ruling how to do such an event. What exactly do you mean? And which "level of formality" to think you cannot attain at FOSDEM?

I know wonderer meant it as a guideline, so maybe just some sentences lead to a missunderstanding.

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page