Policy-Discussion

[Mark Lipscombe <mark AT cacert.org>]

On 3/27/2010 6:20 PM, Ian G wrote:
> The Association is "just another person" in the community. Like an
> Assurer. The Association also desperately wants the protection of the
> Arbitrator so as to provide a considered ruling that allows it to hand
> over the data so requested. Otherwise it is going to be sued when it
> responds foolishly quickly to a scary document.

This is the point that I think the argument tends to fall over on.

If we are to assume CAcert, Inc. to be just another person in the 
community, then the policy should not be able to look behind that 
"person" to, in turn, direct how it conducts it's "internal" affairs.

Even before arguing the merits of whether or not there should be 
background checking, the policy group should not exercise control over 
the internal affairs of the association.  The proper (and only) place 
that should be done is through resolutions of the association membership.

The policy group can influence the association's interaction with the 
community as a community member, it can influence the association's 
access and control of various items, but it does not have the right to 
look into the association's internal affairs (such as committee make 
up).  Members of the policy group or the wider community looking to do 
that should consider joining the association and using the mechanisms 
available there to effect any change.

I was a proponent (and author) of many of the proposed rule changes at 
the last AGM.  Many of those resolutions were unsuccessful.  Is anyone's 
position such that I could now propose those same rules in the context 
of the policy discussion, and pass them with simple consensus on the 
policy list, and have them affect the association's internal rules?

Yeah, didn't think so. :)

Regards,
Mark