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: Jac Kersing <j.kersing AT the-box.com>
  • To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] cacert-p] how the military does safety
  • Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:06:21 +0100 (CET)
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cacert-policy>
  • List-id: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy.lists.cacert.org>

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Jens Paul wrote:

I heard of one situation (can't remember the exact topi) where an assurer was told to do something by the event organisator and

First of all in this example, we have to assume the event organisator knew how things should be done. (S)he might have been mistaken as well or something could not have been clear and interpreted in different ways.

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.

His statement is not correct, the board is allowed to tell him what (not) to do. Was there a board member present?

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!

When someone does all assurances in private no-one will ever know about issues like this. Do we need to address those as well???

What I am asking is, do we need additional policies/rules to deal with this or can it be handled with the current set?

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?

There are a number of pages in the wiki that could be mistaken for policies while still being discussion documents. As a WIKI implies anyone being able to edit a page I think the active policies (even if still in draft if there isn't another) should be on the main website and discussion items (clearly marked as discussion items to avoid confusion for the casual visitor) on the WIKI or on this list. (Just my opinion of course, so feel free to disagree :-) )

Best regards,

Jac

---
 Jac Kersing            Technical Consultant   The-Box Development
 
j.kersing AT the-box.com
         CISSP           http://www.the-box.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page