Subject: Policy-Discussion
List archive
- From: Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>
- To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
- Subject: SP => POLICY?
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:13:58 +1100
- Authentication-results: lists.cacert.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i= AT cacert.org; dkim-asp=none
According to PoP, a policy can only be in DRAFT for a year ...
Security Policy reaches this milestone this Saturday, following p20090327.
https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/SecurityPolicy.html
Now, there are some marked up suggestions in BLUE that have not been voted upon. These basically add an "Application Engineer" who is responsible for the application. We would need to make a bit of a decision here as to which way we want to go.
1. Keep SP in DRAFT for another period, and
re-work those BLUE sections.
2. Accept the BLUE, and go to POLICY.
3. Discard the BLUE as not voted, and go to POLICY.
4. Or?
What do policy group people vote for?
iang
PS: Green should disappear.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
- SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Andreas Bürki, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Dieter Hennig, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Dieter Hennig, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/24/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Dieter Hennig, 03/24/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/24/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Dieter Hennig, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/23/2010
- RE: SP => POLICY?, Ernestine, 03/23/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/24/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Michael Tänzer, 03/27/2010
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/27/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.