Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 25/10/2009 09:28, Werner Dworak wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> > > I think, if an assurer could change his assurance too easily would be
> > > too misuse prone. If not an arbitrator so at least a support engineer
> > > should double check it.
>
> > I would say that the assurance isn't ever modified.  It's simply
> > replaced.  An arbitrator could request the entire history of assurances
> > and see the different varieties.
>
> I think we should have both.

Sure.


> If I just did a mistake (typing error or missing some entry) filling the
> online form and I submitted it too fast, I should be able to correct it
> in a time frame of about one hour without the intervention of support.


I think that is more reasonable now that we are moving to the CARS 
framework where an Assurer's statement is reliable.  We rely on the 
whole aspects of the Assurer's work, and we don't need to pernickety 
about capturing the exact statement just once.

(Also, a lot has changed in the community since that original design. 
It is no surprise that its shelf life is looking bad.)


> But if I become more experienced or get some hint and decide that one
> assurance was not right and I should chance it, there should always be a
> double check by support. And there you are right, the old assurance
> should be maintained with the remark of invalid, so an arbitrator easily
> can recheck it. If the above time frame is exceeded, there are chances
> it was no simple mistake but some reason. So support shall check as well.


Right.  I often forget that my mind-set is unfamiliar to others.  When I 
say "replace" I mean, the actual record of the act is not replaced, 
because the act should be recorded forever.  In contrast, the system 
should take the last known record as the one of current effect.  A bit 
like wills&last testaments;  the last good one is the one.


> Another good idea would to be able to revisit an assurance. At present,
> if I enter the email address of someone I assured already, I am blocked
> immediately, so I cannot check what I did. I should be able to view an
> old assurance and be only blocked if I try to change something.


I agree with the last point, yes, I find that very annoying.  But I put 
it down to the software issues we have, and I'm not going to worry about 
it.  If you think about it, fiddling to fix that will result in a 
complete redesign of that section ... and then we're into the resources 
question.

iang