Policy-Discussion

[Alexander Prinsier <aphexer AT cacert.org>]

On 01/20/2010 07:27 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
> The discussion should go first and then the voting should be done!

Well I was thinking about doing it at the same time ;) You can still
reverse your vote ;)

> Having said this I'm not solidly against your idea, but for now I'm not
> sure if it makes sense define more details in the AP.
> It's clearly stated in PracticeOnNames that your proposed rules should
> be the standard. 

Well that's only the PracticeOnNames... It's not a policy, just a
guideline. At least I haven't seen an arbitrator rule that content on
the wiki is as binding as a policy.

> And I'd prefer to leave it to Arbitration to allow some
> specific "name mapping", like Johannes -> Hans in germany. For me it is
> very hard to see if explicitly forbidding this for ever and everyone
> won't get us in troubles somehow.

A lot of people probably would have to file a dispute to get their names
fixed according to the new requirements yes :)

> If you absolutely want to add something to the AP, why not something
> like "Exceptions to 2.1 need to be approved by an Arbitration."? OK, I
> must admit this somehow sounds stupid... But maybe someone else has a
> better idea?

Hm, outsourcing policy decisions to an arbitrator... :) I'd prefer to
stick with my idea of requiring an ID (at least for those places that
have them, like Ian pointed out).

What about a Europe subpolicy that requires government issued ID explicitly?

Alexander

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature