Policy-Discussion

[Philipp Gühring <pg AT futureware.at>]

Hi,

> > 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?

Board decisions need more than 1 board member. So I guess a single board 
member isn´t particularly useful, but I might be wrong there.
See http://www.cacert.org/docs/CAcert_Rules.pdf for more details.

> > 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???

Another hole in the system ...

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

I just had a discussion with Ian on the topic, and we both came to the 
conclusion that the Senior-Assurer concept is even contraproductive:
* Assurers who deny  common sense and deny other assurers at an event will 
also deny Senior-Assurers
* They can simply leave the booth and continue assuring around the corner, or 
otherwise avoid Senior Assurers
* Designating Senior-Assurers that try to overrule other Assurers will likely 
cause more confusion and troubles. What if the Senior-Assurer is wrong?
* If there are several Senior-Assurers at a booth, and they have a dispute. 
What happens then? Do we create Senior-Senior-Assurers? 
"Senior Assurers don´t scale very well"


> > 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 :-) )

Ok, Jac, can you work through all Wiki pages, and mark them accordingly?

Best regards,
Philipp Gühring