Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT systemics.com>]

Philipp Gühring wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some past experience values:


Ah, excellent!  Some numbers.


> > So a valid defence would be to remove all points so
> > allocated.  Which might be no bad thing as many people will
> > be "in the spirit" and will have (a) enough points and 
>
> 5%
>
> > (b) 
> > enough capability to get future points, or 
>
> 5%
>
> > (c) will not be 
> > using the system much anyway.
>
> 70%
>
> > At the margin there will be some caught in the net.  They'll
> > be unhappy.
>
> 20%


OK, so there might be 20 people for a person who has lost 
100 forms.  That's not unbearable.

If your archive stretches back years and you have 1000 
people then that might be more of an issue.  But then we 
have another problem, I suspect, in that the WoT has 
acquired a single point of maximal nuisance.

As a sort of future observation, most systems tend to 
include a freshness attribute into their policies.  E.g., at 
the simplest levels, every year, an Assurer loses say 30% of 
their points, so has to go and find new Assurers to keep up 
to 100 points.

(I just picked those numbers, they are examples only.)


> > These are tricky issues.  Is it possible to write a policy
> > that tells what to do here?  Or should this simply be a
> > filed dispute, against self, that asks the Arb to look at
> > the facts and give a ruling?
>
> An assurance should only be revoked when we have any material evidence that 
> the assurance was wrong.


That's a policy?  I'm curious why the metric of "material 
evidence" was chosen?

...

iang