Policy-Discussion

[Mark Lipscombe <mark AT cacert.org>]

On 3/26/2010 3:10 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
> As I mentioned here[1] I have some concerns over:
>
> 1. background check of board members
>
> not because of my or any board member's background but because:
> 1.1 requiring a background check of the board is a decision for the CAcert Inc
> members not the policy group
> 1.2 the board doesn't access personal data or control critical systems. The
> exception of root control which is done as a team. The lack of control over
> personal data or critical systems means the ABC background check isn't needed.
> The arbitrators have more important cases than performing ABCs on board
> members with limited control over critical data.

I too share Daniel's concerns on this one.

The constitution of the CAcert, Inc. board is subject to the 
association's rules, and the membership of the association.  It simply 
is not possible nor appropriate for the policy group to attempt to exert 
control here.

It's one thing to ask or demand that the committee perform it's role 
within the community in accordance with PoP and the policies that result 
from it, and it's fairly well accepted that the committee should do so. 
 It's entirely another to attempt to dictate the method of appointment 
to the committee.

The requirement for background checks for committee members amounts to a 
special resolution of the association by stealth.  If the members of 
CAcert, Inc. agree with this, they are welcome to propose a modification 
to the associations rules.

It seems like there is consensus for the SP to stay in draft, in which 
case, the committee may wish to consider vetoing this part of the policy 
under PoP 4.6.

Regards,
Mark