Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 27/03/2010 18:38, Mark Lipscombe wrote:
> 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.


When any member joins the CAcert Community, she agrees to Arbitration.

So does CAcert, Inc.  There is nothing wrong with this.

The DRP doesn't look "inside" unless there is a dispute.  In the context 
we are discussing, there is plenty of justification here to look 
"inside" because it is an event of community interest.  It's a dispute 
against the community.  The community's interests are clearly at issue.


> Even before arguing the merits of whether or not there should be
> background checking,

yes, ABC is not the issue here.

> 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.


AGM 2007.  We've already done it.

https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/General_Meetings/AGM-Nov2007/Minutes-17Nov2007-AGM.pdf

   "3.     CAcert Policy of Policy Documents; accepted as
   Document Policy
   http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/PolicyOnPolicy.html ;.
   4.   CAcert Dispute Resolution Policy for arbitrations;
   accepted as Document Policy
   http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/dispute_resolution.html ;.

   Chair noted that policy documents are subjected to
   changes by CAcert community and policy discussions
   and votes via policy email discussion list of CAcert.


> 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).


It can pass a policy.  If that policy looks into internal affairs, then 
the Board retains a right to veto when in DRAFT.  Not in POLICY.  When 
it effects the legal obligations.

Perhaps the way to consider this is that it is part of the bargain.  In 
order to retain the executive role over the entire community, the 
community passes the policy -- rules -- role across to the policy group.

Without that bargain, what makes the Association think it can tell the 
community what to do?


> 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.


The community agrees to the CCA + DRP and places the Association / board 
as the executive.  So does the Association.


> 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. :)

The Association already did that.  This is why, when the Board approved 
PoP in 2007, I advised them to ask for full ratification by policy group 
and Association.

That was done.  The Association has placed itself under PoP.


iang

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