Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT systemics.com>]

Bernhard Froehlich wrote:
> Sven Anderson schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jens Paul, 28.02.2007 14:15:
> >  
> > > So again: if we have that topic on CeBIT I have to file I dispute in 
> > > order to tell an assurer that the CPS is the highest document and he 
> > > has to assure according to that policy.
> > >     
> >
> > it will be the top document. But AFAIK the CPS is still a draft and has
> > not been adopted yet and therefore not mandatory. Right?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sven
> There is a CPS on https://www.cacert.org/cps.php. You can find it by 
> googling "CAcert CPS". It is not marked as a draft or otherwise invalid 
> (or does a versionnumber of 0.10 mark it as a draft?). It differs from 
> the proposed new (draft) CPS on 
> http://www2.futureware.at/svn/sourcerer/CAcert/policy.htm.


Yes, that's the working draft.  OK, it's lacking DRAFT markings.

> So my interpretation of these facts is, that there is a currently active 
> CPS. Though according to Duane it contains "personal standards not 
> matching the official line". Which quite confuses me, as might have 
> become clear from my recent mails... ;)


OK, so what are those criticisms?  Perhaps, let's leave 
aside the "personal" part and concentrate on Standards 
versus Lines?


> You may call this nitpicking. If I'm considering how CAcert in fact 
> works than I have to agree you. It's just that noone cares about the 
> CPS. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but confuses me nonetheless.


To add to my prior email (Audit => CPS => Assurance 
Handbook) ... that CPS remains a work-in-progress (much to 
my annoyance), and there is certainly room for (m)any comments.

The major thing for Assurers to note is that while it 
establishes the baseline for many things, it kicks the 
Assurance process over to an Assurance Handbook.  We can 
look at two potential criticisms of that aspect:

1.  CPS => Assurance Handbook is bad idea.
2.  Assurance Handbook needs some work....

Of the two, (2) is a given.  Go to it, guys.

(1) I would still like to hear about.

iang