Policy-Discussion

[Duane <duane AT cacert.org>]

Jens Paul wrote:
> Hi Duane
>> 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.
>>   
> 
> 
> YES! As I pointed out before the problem right know is that we label the
> wiki "unoffical" (due to good reasons) and so people always discuss
> whether something in the wiki is "offical" or "policy" or if it's just
> some writing by someone. If you implement such a tag system we can keep
> the benefit of everyone writing to the wiki AND people can see whether
> they can trust an entry or if the should take such an entry with care.
> I'd like it that way. Would help to throw away much of the confusion we
> have :-)

All I meant by the tag system was people adding a line to the top of the
document. For example you could put:

Status: Official Policy (ratified: 2007-02-20, see policy mailing list
archive)

or

Status: Informational Document

Perhaps we should consider locking documents listed as Official Policy
so no further changes can be made except by those with the right access
that should be able to do the right thing, or risk loosing their privileges.

-- 

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."