Policy-Discussion

[<ulrich AT cacert.org>]

yup, this gives enough background infos to the reader, that this
topic is a complex one and might be difficult to decide :)

good for a manual, but overload for a policy ,-)

also for the guide, I would propose a short version
(summary ?) with a link to a subpage with the
long article  (-> detailed view)

/policy/guide/policy-date-in-effect   (or similar naming)

similar to the https://wiki.cacert.org/Assurance/Training  structure  ;?!?

regards, uli   ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian G 
[mailto:iang AT cacert.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:59 AM
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)=


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
>>
>>

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