Policy-Discussion

["Ernestine" <ernestine AT cacert.org>]

Hi Ian,

For now I'm for  1.

Some mentioned Teams are not already "built", and for me is not clear how
the 4-eyes would work, if one team is within the other team. 
The blue sections in my opinion are not ready for policy, till the teams are
visible, built and installed. I cann't find on the wiki-pages an overview of
the teams.
I think these teams should be somewhere defined with names - who is doing
what. 
The SE-team-overview on the support-page is also not up-to-date.

Ernestine



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian G 
> [mailto:iang AT cacert.org]
>  
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:14 PM
> To: Policy-Discussion
> Subject: SP => POLICY?
> 
> 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