Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 30/03/2010 20:53, Andreas Bürki wrote:
> As it seems my vote for:
>
> Remove Board background checks from DRAFT Security Policy
>
> Has been registered as: "Materially misrecorded" [1] for whatever reason!


Yes, you recorded support for the veto, which was not a motion before 
the policy group.  Your mail recorded support for this statement by GR:

    "As a CAcert association member, I fully agree with the schema
    and reasons to veto the Security Policy."

Which is good, but that's a board decision, and not a policy group motion.


> I state here again:
>
> ***I vote for removal of board background checks from DRAFT Security
> Policy***
>
> I would like, that my vote counts as the vote of any member of this
> policy list. Otherwise, please tell me, what mistake I have done.


That's super, Andreas, but no question has been correctly and fairly 
presented to the Policy Group.  And at this stage, because of the veto, 
it is difficult to present fairly, because people will need to 
understand and vote in the face of the actions of the Board, which means 
independence of the policy group is lost.


> I expect, that I will be immediately listed as Wytze, in the section
> "For removal" [1]


That motion is vacated, improper.


Cheers, iang.


> Best regards
>
>
> Andreas Bürki aka hugi
>
>
> Link:
> [1]    http://wiki.cacert.org/PolicyDecisions#p20100327

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