Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 24/03/2010 08:59, Ernestine wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> For now I'm for  1.


OK!


> 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.

Can you be specific as to which team is within which other team?

> The blue sections in my opinion are not ready for policy, till the teams are
> visible, built and installed.


Typically policy and teams evolve at different speeds.  There is no 
necessary order.  Historically we've not had a lot of success at 
deriving policy from up & running teams, we've had more success at 
writing policies from 1st principles and then rebuilding the teams from 
the policies.  But either path is possible.

Either way, what the teams are doing is not a binding issue for policy 
group.


> 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.


That would be something to talk to the SE and other team leaders about.



iang

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