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.


OK, Cool.  I'm still wondering whether there is a need to 
"designate" or "allow" a local Arbitrator at these major events.


> > 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!


Outstanding action:  start a thread on a "Senior Assurer." 
Sorry, been fighting other battles ...


> > 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 :-)

Sounds good to me!

iang