Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 25/02/13 11:49 AM, Bernd Jantzen wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I agree with you that policies which are binding on the community must be 
> "easy
> to find". In principle, it is clear to all of us, I think, that the version 
> of a
> policy which is binding must the be one in http://www.cacert.org/policy/ which
> is linked from the front page. So, whenever a policy is voted to DRAFT or 
> POLICY
> status, the current version must be moved to this official location as fast as
> possible. I don't really think that we need to clarify this in PoP, though I 
> am
> not against doing so.


The point here is that PoP makes it very clear what the process of a 
binding clause is, and how to decide if something has transitioned to 
Binding status, by means of a decision.

It is recognised that the existence of a binding status is not sometimes 
clear to the wider community, but it is rather difficult to resolve 
that, and it is actually quite pointless to attempt to resolve it by 
some simple mechanical means, because whatever mechanism you come up 
with (e.g., "publish on website") will be totally ignored by readers 
anyway, and also subject to much complaint and gnashing of teeth, sysadm 
problems, publication dates and so forth.  It is for this reason that 
PoP (in the past) deliberately ignored things like the website for 
binding purposes; otherwise we'd be slave to delays and grumbling.

(And, literally PoP was born out of being slave to the publisher of 
policies, as that publisher declined to publish.  Therefore PoP is its 
own master.  We annoint no kings here.)


> The other question is (thanks, Alex, for pointing this out), from which date 
> on
> a new version of a policy gets binding, especially when a dispute arises close
> to the change date of a policy by which it is affected.
>
>    * The header of the policies mentions the dates of the policy-group motions
>      (p...). Does this mean that the policy is binding from the date when the
>      motion is posted? This cannot be, because the decision about the policy 
> only
>      comes later, when the motion is carried (usually about two weeks later).
>    * The date, when the motion is "carried" as marked on
>      http://wiki.cacert.org/PolicyDecisions ? But this date is not so
>      straightforward to find for outsiders of the policy group.
>    * Or is the policy only binding from date when it appears at the official
>      location in http://www.cacert.org/policy/ ? This would somehow be ;
> analogous
>      to some state law being in effect from the moment on when it has been
>      published officially, and not from the date on when it has been voted in
>      parliament or when it has been signed by the president.
>
> In view of recent questions and disputes, maybe it would now be the time to
> clarify this.


So what we do here is to create a regime whereby the process is defined 
in PoP, and if ever a date comes into question, what we then we provide 
the recording of the decision, including starting and ending dates.

But PoP *does not* nail down a date of effect, deliberately.

You'll notice that there are indeed two dates - the starting date of the 
decision's motion being posted, and closing date the vote. Either could 
be the date of effect.  You'll probably wonder why we don't resolve 
that.  Again, it's deliberate.  The issue of the precise date of effect 
of a decision is left to the Arbitrator.  The bureaucrats may thump the 
desk and say this isn't good enough ... but this is again a signal to us 
of what's important and what's not...

We can note sometimes with amusement that laws typically have the same 
problem.  They tend to come into effect on "signing dates" or "gazette 
publication dates" all of which are for all practical purposes 
inaccessible to the public.  For example, the debacle over CAcert Inc 
directors ... we knew it was coming for about 2 years. We were told by 
OFT that we'd have lots of notice of the date of effect, and it would be 
"in 6 months or so," and there would be a grace period.  Then suddenly, 
it was done, and we were suddenly not in compliance with the law, and we 
heard about it in the wider media.

That's "signing dates" for you, a lottery with your assets...

What is clear in our process is this:  PoP states what the process of a 
decision to Binding is.  Practice is that we record the date of 
decision, start and end, but the reason for recording is more to do with 
capturing the votes in order to clarify rough consensus.

What is not clear is the date of effect.  There is some leeway between 
the motion start and end dates.  This leeway is deliberately left to the 
Arbitrator's decision.

Leeway is important because if a precise date is important, then we are 
in danger of being rushed into decisions;  instead let us make the 
decision on the merits, not in a rush.  Leeway is also important because 
there is a tendency to elect a sovereign who signs.  That way lies madness.




> E.g., what about DRP now: The current draft version should be the one voted in
> p20130116, motion carried 20130131, but still the version published at
> http://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php is the one from
> p20121213. Probably this is due to the ongoing change from .php to .html for 
> all
> policies, see http://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=1131 or
> http://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=1130 ;.
> So which version is the binding one now, today?
> http://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php or
> http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/DisputeResolutionPolicy.html ;?


The thing is, *versions* aren't important.  Clauses are.  There is no 
"one true document" but there are defined decisions (for this, refer to 
the way courts agree on what a contract is - discovery and stipulation).

The process in PoP relates to decisions, and that's why Ulrich has added 
a clause "A record of decisions shall be maintained." Experience has 
shown that we need that decision recorded, with starting and ending 
dates.  The reason for this is that the decision may become a turning 
point for any Arbitration.  So we need the decision clearly recorded so 
when it turns up in Arbitration, the thing can be judged as soundly 
made.  Imagine us in court one day where the whole framework is being 
challenged -- the one thing that will win our case for us is that we 
made our decisions *purposefully* and we can show that we made our 
decisions *purposefully*.

(Note that this creates an somewhat contradictory perspective on "rough 
consensus" which we in CAcert have therefore finessed and modified and 
evolved -- our "rough consensus" is distinct again to IETF's concept.)

For example, DRP as approved at a meeting in Pirmasens, 2007.  But, it 
was in "practical use" before that.  When did it come into effect?  The 
precise decision of some of these documents like OAP were not well 
recorded, so we had to redo the OAP in policy group after Pirmasens.  
DRP now has some changes, such as the famous dropping of board for 
appeal.  However, that change was in parallel with a filed dispute for 
appeal, with the board as party.  So, policy group made the decision to 
drop the board, but policy group remained silent on whether any current 
appeal should be impacted by that decision.  That's for the Arbitrator 
to consider.


Also, remember, that any confusion over a date of effect will (a) be 
very rare, and (b) before the hands of the Arbitrator, who is quite 
capable of reading the policies and making a decision.  In practice, 
there has only been that one, out of 6 years of resolving and hundreds 
of cases.

QED -- This is a non-problem.




iang

> Best regards,
> Bernd
>
>
> Alex Robertson, 25.02.2013 00:46:
> > I specified "easy to find" rather than requiring a direct link - there has
> > been a lot of arguments about how valid the changes published by this group
> > are as they stand at the moment - they certainly mark the intent, but at
> > what point do they actually become policy - hence I perceive a need for an
> > easy to find link (direct or otherwise!) also possibly referencing the
> > decisions made here as well as the formal policy documents. The method this
> > forum uses to record decisions is not referenced  anywhere as a formal point
> > of change!
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bernd Jantzen 
> > > [mailto:web AT bernd-jantzen.de]
> > > Sent: 24 February 2013 18:58
> > > To: 
> > > cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
> > > Subject: Re: PoP: easy linking - frontpage - main website ? ( RE: Vote on
> > > p20130223 - Several minor changes to PoP to vote to DRAFT (was: improving
> > > p20100306 - minor changes to PoP)=
> > >
> > > I would even say that already "published on the CAcert website" implies
> > that
> > > there is a (direct or indirect) link from the front page to the document,
> > > otherwise it could not be called "published".
> > >
> > > Also I would not specify that there must be a (direct) link from the front
> > page;
> > > this is not even realized now: There is a link "policies" which leads to a
> > list of
> > > links to the policies. But there is no direct link.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bernd
> [...]
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alex Robertson 
> > > [mailto:alex-uk AT cacert.org]
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:26 AM
> > > To: 
> > > cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
> > > Subject: RE: Vote on p20130223 - Several minor changes to PoP to vote to
> > > DRAFT (was: improving p20100306 - minor changes to PoP)
> > >
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: 
> > > > > ulrich AT cacert.org
> > > > >  
> > > > > [mailto:ulrich AT cacert.org]
> > > > >      adding:
> > > > >       ............................................................
> > > > >       5.4 POLICY documents are published on the CAcert website
> > > > >           in plain HTML. Change control must be in place.
> > > > >       ............................................................
> > > > Perhaps a slight change here ....
> > > >
> > > > >       5.4 POLICY documents are published on the CAcert website
> > > > >           in plain HTML with an easy to find link from the front page of
> > > > >          the main website. Change control must be in place.
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Alex