Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - 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)=

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

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)=


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>
  • 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)=
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:59:08 +0300

On 25/02/13 11:49 AM, Bernd Jantzen wrote:
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.

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 ;?


How about adding a section to EggPol on this.

/When does a new Policy or Decision go into effect?/

PoP is silent on the issue of when a policy goes into effect, and policy group has not changed that approach.

In the first instance, the Decision to DRAFT, as recorded as a voted motion in /PolicyDecisions is the best guide. That decision is likely not in effect on the date that voting starts; once voting is closed and rough consensus is declared, effect can be assumed.

How would we practically narrow it down further? Imagine there are two types of policy -- one being popular, and another being disputed. The first form would simply be adopted as soon as possible, and indeed possibly before the voting. Nothing to do here.

The second would result in disputes being filed. Once filed, an Arbitrator is well equipped to determine if the policy is in effect for that dispute, and whether to delay it (for this dispute or even in general) as, she has at hand all the facts of that dispute, as well as all the deliberations on policy group. Indeed, as policy group lacks the precise facts of any particular dispute, and are essentially thinking at a high level, they are not as likely to be able to determine complicated interactions. Dates and delays are therefore hard to rationalise beyond the handwavy "now" of the Decision date.

Another way of looking at this is historically: there have been many practices that have found their path blocked by policy. For example, Assurance Policy put a stop to Super-Assurer, TTP and T-Verify. The response to this by the community was all over the map. Super-Assurer was banned by the board, by omission. TTP was eventually stopped by Arbitration, on discovery that somebody was filing them 2 years after AP, and TTP-Assist remains delayed by software. T-Verify termination was announced by Board with over a year's grace, which slipped again.

And, we don't even want to mention CCA :) The point being here that in those cases, policy group probably wasn't the best place to set a hard date of effect, at least in those cases. Board, Arbitration and the Community had a better handle on those complex changes. Better for policy group to wave at the Decision dates, and let the system work out any difficulties with that simplistic approach.


(end of snippet for EggPol -- comments?)



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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page