Policy-Discussion

[Jens Paul <cacert AT canyonsport.de>]

Hi Jac,

> > OK.  Well, we could hack the Arbitration system by simply
> > declaring that the Senior Assurer acts as Arbitrator for all
> > disputes filed during the event.
> >     
>
> In my book arbitrators need the time and information (at least active 
> policies/rules, guidelines and case information) to be able to judge the 
> dispute. Is the average event the venue for a well considered arbitration? 
> I hardly think so.
>   

That's simple to handle. If he is able to do a well considered 
arbitrations (because it is clearly readable in the policy) than he 
should do. If not he should pass it to High Court (or whatever we'd like 
to call the Arbitration process afterwards). I am ONLY talking about 
decissions which can clearly made according to policy statements.

> > Howzat?
> >     
>
> Optimistic?
>   

Realistic?

> > I think in the model that CAcert has, anyone can file a
> > dispute.  Perhaps it is the same thing:  put a HOLD on an
> > assurance.
> >     
>
> And what happens if I were to assure someone increasing their number of 
> points over 50, that person requests and gets a cert. Now someone files a 
> dispute concerning that assurance. Is the cert valid during the 
> arbitration process? Or will it be revoked whatever the result of the 
> arbitration will be and does (s)he need to get a new one afterwards?
>   

And that's why I asked for a quick decission at the event. I'd really 
like to avoid filing a dispute after an event leading to the revocation 
of all assurances done by a single assurer. Better to hold ONE assurance 
at the event, and have a dispute resolution at the event (if possible 
and according to the policy).

> For me an arbitrator needs more training/knowledge than a senior assurer.
>   

Yep, that's why I first used "core-team member", "board-member", 
"officer" instead of senior-assurer. But the community could decide 
before the event who can be the local arbitrator at the event. Shouldn't 
be a problem, or?

> Something else to consider:
> If the senior assurer decides an assurance needs to be held for whatever 
> reason, who would stop an assurer from logging on to the CAcert site and 
> process the assurance anyway? Will the assurer be unable to process (any) 
> assurances while one needs to be held according to the senior assurer?
>   

Well, if the senior assurer has offically the power to hold the 
assurance and the assurer is still continuing, it would be a case to 
ban  such a person from further assurance and to revoke all assurance 
done by him at the event. Would someone really risk this if we have such 
a policy? Another reason to have one in place :-)

> I think an senior assurer should be advising the others on how to proceed, 
> nothing else. If there are serious problems concerning an assurance an 
> dispute is the correct way to handle it, not some ad-hoc 'trail' at an 
> event where people are likely to be far to busy to think clearly.
>
>   

Again, in my opinion that's not enough. But I like the "local 
arbitrator" concept Ian mentioned.

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