Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT systemics.com>]

Jens Paul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> again, sorry for my delayed reply ...
>
> > OTOH, what Jens seemed to be saying was that the "filing a 
> > dispute" mechanism did answer his use-case.  So if that is 
> > the case, maybe no additional policy is needed?
> >   
>
> For me, that answer is absolutely fine. I still like the idea of a local 
> arbitration during large events, but we can push that issue back for a 
> while and see if we really need it or not. For know, I can work on the 
> education stuff based on the "file a dispute" mechanism.


Which reminds me ... Cebit is coming up.  It's the biggest 
show, partly because there is a good strong pool of German 
Assurers willing to brave the technochaos of Hannover.

Who is organising it?

The reason I am asking about Cebit is that I want to see 
just how far the work that has been done by the policy 
group(s) has spread.  Seeing many Assurers clustered at 
Cebit is a good chance to test how far the new ways of 
Liability, CPS, dispute resolution, user agreement, etc etc 
is absorbed into the wider CAcert environment.

(Obviously, we can write a policy here in the group which we 
all agree on ... and just as obviously all the Assurers can 
go off and ignore it totally.  That's an audit problem!!! )

> > We need some way to encourage more experienced people, and 
> > we need some way to make sure that those that take on more 
> > liability are more protected and supported.  Someone who 
> > puts together an event like Cebit needs to be supported, 
> > both with recognition, and with support.
> >   
>
> YES!
>
> > Someone has to do the training courses, and someone has to 
> > do arbitration.  Write policy documents, help the auditor, 
> > etc etc.  There are lots of tasks that are well beyond the 
> > average Assurer experience level.
> >   
>
> As I mentioned before, I try to use the draft of the Assurer Training 
> Presentation during CeBIT. So maybe after that event we see if a common 
> training level is already enough to solve most of the discussion points. 
> If so and we push the education / testing scenario as discussed, than we 
> might be happy without any additional policy :-)


Excellent!  Do you think the work on Testing will be 
advanced enough to try it there?  Even if it is simulated 
with pen&paper instead of the self-training tech you were 
planning ... it would be a good chance of feedback.

iang