Policy-Discussion

[Duane <duane AT cacert.org>]

R P Herrold wrote:

> 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.

I think there may be some confusion here maybe in part as it was written
by people that natively speak German (iirc), the gist is that is the
ideal way to handle large events, however we should probably publish
similar documents where a reduced presence will be for small and medium
sized events.

Although this raises a good point in general that the document wasn't
labelled informational, so it seems to be taken as policy, perhaps we
need to assign RFC style tags to documents to prevent similar confusing
in the future.

This would have the side benefit of people knowing what is ratified as
policy and what isn't and people should refrain from posting policy like
documents unless it actually is policy.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane

http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom
http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP

"In the long run the pessimist may be proved right,
    but the optimist has a better time on the trip."