Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: improving p20100306 - minor changes (TRIAL POST)

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: improving p20100306 - minor changes (TRIAL POST)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>
  • To: cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
  • Subject: Re: improving p20100306 - minor changes (TRIAL POST)
  • Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0300

Having discussed, read responses, and thought about it for a few days, I am thinking now that the answer lies in policy.

Because we have been challenged [0] on an issue of Policy, we should get the Policy right.

Therefore, I'm thinking in terms of copying p20100306 straight into the appropriate place in PoP:

======================ADD at end of PoP#2:
2. Basic Model:
...
2.n+1  Editors may make the following changes, where
     it is clear that the change does not change the policy:
    
        * fixes to errors in grammar and spelling,
        * anchors, HTML errors, URLs & formatting,
        * COD numbers and formatting, and
        * other minutiae, as agreed under 2.3.

Such changes are to be notified to the policy group, and are to be folded into effect, etc, without further ado.

========================END OF ADDITION.



With some improvement of course :)  How do people feel about that?




iang



[0] Cost-wise, it looks like we are going to spend around 2-4 weeks on this regardless of how we deal with it.  We have been told to spend time writing down stuff we already know, we have consensus on, and is established practice over many years.  A.k.a. bureaucracy.  Which will hold up our policy work.  Either way, we don't get out of the challenge without *at least a vote* .  Which is expensive, dammit!  Which we should make count...  Therefore, let's turn this into an opportunity and fix it in the policy.  This way, we lead.


On 20/02/13 06:30 AM, Ian G wrote:
Software Assessment in its last telco meeting declined to take some new policy changes with links modifications, according to p20100306:

     Policy Officer may make the following changes,
     where it is clear that the change does not
     change the policy:

        URLs to track any links that move,
        grammatical errors,
        anchors, HTML errors & formatting,
        COD numbers and formatting
        other minutiae,

They said that, as the Policy Officer position is not listed in the Officer's page, they decline to recognise the effect of the motion.

Motion p20100306 has been very valuable because it has meant we can do things without wasting everyone's time.  Policy group attention is our most valuable resource, we don't want to squander it.  Following a suitable notification, it's done and complete, and policy group can concentrate more on real work.

Still, the message is clear, Software Assessment have decided to stop after 3 years of success.  I want to preserve the intent of the motion, and I see three possibilities:

   1. vote on a policy officer.

   2. adjust the above words so they say Policy Team instead
      of Officer, and add a caveat that the changes are
      notified to policy group (our general practice anyway).

   3. incorporate words into PoP to that effect.

What do people think?  Prefer 1,2,3 or something else?

I apologise in advance, but it looks like we're in for another vote on stuff we already have strong consensus on, and strong practice.



iang




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page