Policy-Discussion

[Jens Paul <cacert AT canyonsport.de>]

Hi,
> > 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.
>   

I think such decission made by an event organisator / officer / senior 
assurer should always be based on a policy. And if we allow such a 
person to be an event organisator / officer / senior assurer (we have to 
define first!), we should be able to trust him that he acts only 
according to the policy. If not, he won't keep his "job" very long, right?

>   
> > 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?
>   

No, definetly not.

But this is a good point. There is nowhere anything written about the 
"power of the board". As we are not all australian (thanks god!) it is 
hard to tell which power they have according to australian law. If it is 
fact that a board member has the "ultimate power" to make a decission 
that we can keep it short: give the people during the event the chance 
to reach a board member for fast decissions and we don't need any 
"power" or "right to decide" locally :-)

>   
> > 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???
>   

Well, if someone does it all in private people will see him "as a 
person" and not "as CAcert". If it is at an offical booth, thinks are 
seen diffrent I guess.

> 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 :-) )
>   

Yes, I liked Duane's idea of having a "draft" tag automatically added to 
wiki documents 'till they have been revied by "a group".

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