Policy-Discussion

[<ulrich AT cacert.org>]

PoJAM ...

.. has been deployed back in Dec 2009 and voted to DRAFT in January 2010
Now we have still enough experience, that this policy works as expected
one disadvantage we have is in area software, as current webdb
under www.cacert.org cannot handle the addtl. note to add for
PoJAM cases, but this is a software-development task and doesn't hinder
us, to move PoJAM to POLICY

From PoV from Assurance area, no addtl. notes, remarks, corrections
have been sent in, that requires an update of the existing
DRAFT revision 
https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/PolicyOnJuniorAssurersMembers.html

(except some link fixes, that are subject to current running
process in Software-Assessment to rename all policies from .php to .html
and fixing orphaned links, see also bug #1131)

Ok, if no one objects I move that we can start a motion
for voting PoJAM to POLICY
by end of upcoming week, Friday Feb 22




Security Policy ....

.. did undergo a long way of development
In 2010 current SP did undergo the last
review and move to DRAFT
One area that wasn't well discovered and
not ready to deploy was the Software-Assessment
area.
Now 2 and 1/2 years later, we have a running
Software-Assessment team, we have deployed
procedures to bring in new patches to production.
This was a development of the Software-Assessors,
software-developers, software-testers and
the critical team. The procedures have been
documented in the wiki but did not find their
way into the current revision of Security Policy (!)
So here, someone who has some more experience
in writing policies should pickup the task
to review the current working practice with
which one that is currently documented
in the Security Policy and should deploy
it into it, so we can finalize the Security Policy
and probably can vote it to POLICY


comments? objections?


regards, uli   ;-)




-----Original Message-----
From: Ian G 
[mailto:iang AT cacert.org]
 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:59 PM
To: 
cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
Subject: Re: next steps?


On 26/01/13 12:39 PM, Ian G wrote:
>
> In the alternate, what else is more pressing?  CCA needs a big 
> cleanup, and it has a lot of messy bits in the WIP on svn.
>
> Also, Organisation Assurance Policy is suffering from not having been 
> reviewed in a long time.  It was our "earliest" policy from the 2007 
> era, and its age shows.
>
> Any other suggestions?

To pick up on this, some other suggestions have circulated:

*  move PoJAM to POLICY

*  move Security Policy to POLICY



iang



(ps, There are also some background tasks such as putting these dox on 
the main site.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature