Policy-Discussion

[<ulrich AT cacert.org>]

Hi,

while trying to incorporate the proposed changes to the PoP in SVN
https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/PolicyOnPolicy.html
I've stumbled over the other changes made back in 2010 that also
haven't yet passed to DRAFT
and a few more minor adjustments:

1. recently I've stumbled over a subsection in CPS (9.16.1)
   (where should policies reside?)
   that should reside in PoP, not CPS
   while editing, I've saw, that it was still added under 5.4
   probably by transfer from CCS changes ?!?

   one hint on the phrasing "published on the CAcert website"
   its meant, its placed on an official CAcert website
   not restricted to the CAcert MAIN website, so the
   policy directory migration plans, to move the policy directory
   under eg cod.cacert.org that is under "control" is covered
   by the next phrase "Change control must be in place."

   proposed changes in full:
   to add:
   ............................................................
   5.4 POLICY documents are published on the CAcert website
       in plain HTML. Change control must be in place. 
   ............................................................


2. pnt 6.5 to add "A record of decisions is to be maintained."
   this references to the policydecisions page and implementing
   the policy group decisions into the master document
   section Status in the header of the policy document
   the primary responsibility can be a Policy Officer, but
   is not limited to as this position is vacant, it can be
   done by either policy group member passing it to the
   control path (currently documents are located unter
   critical system, the control path here is software-assessment
   and/or critical team, once policy directory moves to
   another policy directory it has to follow the
   "Change control must be in place." directive
   (see previous section). So we are still on the save side :)

   proposed changes in full:
   change from:
   ............................................................
   6.5 Mailing lists should be archived, and important meetings
       should be minuted.
   ............................................................

   change to:
   ............................................................
   6.5 Mailing lists should be archived, and important meetings
       should be minuted. A record of decisions is to be maintained.
   ............................................................


3. section PoP 2.5 to add the minutea changes section
   Ian's proposal has a slight dupe regarding "formatting"
   so the 2nd meaning probably is
   "COD numbers and other references"

   proposed changes in full:
   ............................................................
   2.5 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 other references, and
    other minutiae, as agreed under 2.3.

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


4. previous PoP 2.5 addtl. changes made in 2010
   moves to 2.6

   proposed changes in full:
   ............................................................
   2.6 Documents of lower status (work-in-progress or DRAFT)
       must not be confusable with documents of higher status
       (DRAFT or POLICY). Copies should be eliminated where
       not being worked on. 
   ............................................................

5. while trying to update the header, I've stumbled over
   the "old" style header, so I've updated it to the "new" style
   header

   proposed changes in full:
   changes from:
   ............................................................
   PoP          Iang
   POLICY p200800204.1          20080309
   COD1                 
           Policy on Policy
   ............................................................

   changes to:
   ............................................................
   Name: PoP COD1
   Status: POLICY p200800204.1
   Editor: Iang 20080309                           PoP Status - POLICY
x1)
   Changes: 20100507, 20130223                     PoP Status - DRAFT
x1)
   Licence: CC-by-sa+DRP 
   ............................................................
      x1) as the POLICY and DRAFT pictures


any objections to vote on this changes/proposals too ?



regards, uli   ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian G 
[mailto:iang AT cacert.org]
 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:24 PM
To: 
cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
Subject: Re: improving p20100306 - minor changes (TRIAL POST)


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

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