Policy-Discussion

[Philipp Gühring <pg AT futureware.at>]

Hi,

> 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 don´t restrict event organisation. Anyone can organise an event.
Does anyone really think we should change that?

> 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?

How should "we" know about it in your opinion?

> 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 :-)

The board needs more people (and therefore likely more time) for a decision.
Operational things are usually dealt with by the core-team.
Perhaps it´s a cultural issue that some people would like to always have an 
authority available that can decide issues, but I doubt that this will help 
much in case of common-sense-deniers.

> > 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.

Well, anybody acting as a CAcert assurer somehow represents CAcert. I think 
that´s unavoidable. Yes, an "official booth" even goes one step further.

> > 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".

Is that a feature-request for MoinMoin?

Best regards,
Philipp Gühring