Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 23/02/13 18:41 PM, 
ulrich AT cacert.org
 wrote:
> argh .. 6. slipped through   :-P

Actually, it slipped through, but in another elegantly recursive way - 
those changes below to 0, 1.3 and 1.4 were all slated for incorporation 
under the new 2.5 :)

So personally, I'd suggest you drop 6. from the direct vote, and add a 
last explanatory line to the motion text saying "By way of example, 
changes in 0., 1.3, 1.4 will be incorporated under 2.5 without further 
ado" :)

As for the rest, it all looks good.  Let it rip!


iang

> the changes from 20100507
> to section 0 and 1
> are still in the SVN revision,
> but not in my previous announcement
>
> 6a.
>   0. Preliminaries
>
>   Policy on Policy adopts the IETF model of 'rough consensus' to create
>   CAcert documents within the open [cacert-policy] mail list forum.
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   =>
>
>   Policy on Policy adopts the IETF model of 'rough consensus' to create
>   CAcert documents within the open CAcert Policy Group mail list forum.
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   (with link to https://lists.cacert.org/wws/info/cacert-policy)
>
>
> 6b.
>   1.3 The policies so created are generally binding on
>       CAcert, registered users and related parties
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      -replaced by-
>       CAcert Inc., members under CAcert Community Agreement (CCA => COD9)
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>       and other related parties under other agreements.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> 6c.
> 1.4 The Policy Officer manages all policies and the policy group.
> The policy group is formed on the open mailing list known as
> [cacert-policy], and is to be open to all Community Members of CAcert.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> 1.4 The Policy Officer manages all policies and the policy group.
> The policy group is formed on the open mailing list known as
> CAcert Policy Group, and is to be open to all Community Members of CAcert.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> hint: [cacert-policy] was one day the subject line marker for Policy Group
> mailing list, after switching to sympa back in mid 2010, the subject
> tagging is no longer active, so to name Policy Group as Policy Group
> with the reference to the mailing list ...
>
>
> see the blue markers in the SVN revision ....
>
> the 20100507 changes have been commented as
>   "a set of suggested changes taken from CCS work"
>
> any objections to start with these changes with a voting ?
>
>
> regards, uli   ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> ulrich AT cacert.org
>  
> [mailto:ulrich AT cacert.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:33 PM
> To: 
> cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
> Subject: RE: improving p20100306 - minor changes to PoP
>
>
> 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