Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 19/01/2015 01:27 am, Benny Baumann wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Am 18.01.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Ian G:
> > Point 2.  "on the CAcert website" ... of course there was only one in
> > those days.  Now there are many.  OK, so push a motion to change "the"
> > to "a" .... no biggie.
> ACK. If Policy Group (and not just the Policy Officer) wants to do the
> extra work of maintaining a separate system to publish the documents,
> then sure go ahead.

Well, idk about this, I'm of two minds.  When I talk about how difficult 
websites are to maintain and set up, most techies promise me it's easier 
than breathing air.  But when I actually want a techie to help me set up 
a website, it's like screaming in a vacuum.... so even I have diverging 
experiences ;)

Where this becomes economically sensible is that the Software resource 
is far too expensive to waste on just documents.

If I was software, I'd just refuse to do any changes at all and force 
Policy to go find a website.  Better than this death-by-a-thousand-cuts 
torture.

It is a wider question whether we can find some sysadm who could run a 
basic website such that the HTML dox can be scp'd across directly. Or a 
script run or whatever.

Personally, I'd settle for a straight Apache no-nonsense site for now 
where Eva or someone can do a simple upload secured by SSH keys.  Let 
the content be checked by the mail list.

Later on we might want to put in some more controls, but it's a big 
"whatwever".  Let's do the minimum.  *Are there any sysadms around that 
can be given access to a CAcert VM to just get the basics up and going* ?


> Plain HTML itself is acceptable, but leaves some aspects open based on
> how much of the "plain HTML" document might be adopted e.g. to create a
> proper print version of it. IIRC Policy Group received some suggestions
> to change this unfortunate situation.

This I don't understand....  can you point at those suggestions? What's 
wrong with the HTML provided?

iang