Policy-Discussion

["Ulrich Schroeter \(CAcert\)" <ulrich AT cacert.org>]

Hi

>>  Anyway, back to your proposal:

For the records:
This proposal I've started together with Ian, long time ago (around 2009) by 
the time
The SuperAssurer program has been terminated by AP

Another solution is required to fullfil "SuperAssurers" program drive to 
start with a nucleus
In a CAcert desert with no assurers ...

The Nucleus program consists of a 3rd dimension - the time-move-forth-and-back
That is the main problem in getting as many assurers running to form a stable
Local community to run Assurances later for new requestors without TTP or 
other special programs

The question I've put to discussion was, how many assurers at minimum are 
required to
get a local community, that have enough Assurers available after an initial 
start to get 100 Assurances points
by as many assurances ...
5 assurers with 20 AP each results in 100 AP ... that is one of the essential 
requirements to push
a new member to become a new assurer ...
The next question was, how many assurances you have to do to reach the level 
to give 20 assurance points ?
From start you can give 10 AP, after 5 assurances given the level increases 
to 15 AP, after 10 assurances given
You can give 20 assurance points.
Initial we have to bring in enough assurer candidates to give 10 assurances 
so they earn 20 Experience Points each.
Each assurer candidate gives 10 assurances ... one or two addtl. spare to get 
the 10 assurances working 

But how can we force the initial round table rolling, that’s the Nucleus 
policy is build
Similar to the TTP program, 2 trained Senior Assurers start the Nucleus 
program.
CAcert can give some Assurance Points in advance to break the timeline 
barrier (forth and back), all under control
Of Senior Assurers who controls the process.

The risk for CAcert is less then self-educated assurers starting assurances 
as a Nucleus event is
a combined Assurer training.

Nucleus is in full compliance to AP, as after the event all given Assurance 
Points are within the
 Assurance Policy requirement of max 35 Assurance Points (compare the old 150 
pts assurers program,
Compare the TTP program)

>  Relevant requirements of the Assurance Policy are:
 >  - Every assurer HAS to be absolutely free how much points they assure
 >  from 0 to their current maximum
 >  - Every assurer HAS to be assured by at least 3 assurer.

After the Nucleus event every assuree has received at least 10 individual 
assurances (!!!)



>  But this would also be the case if there is just a group of normal
 >  members who do the same checks as an assurer with each other. [Which
 >  could be something to discuss, anyway, as I recently did with another
 >  member.] We would not require the two nucleus assurer for this.

The Nucleus program is considered to run in the CAcert deserts ... Africa, 
Asia , Moon
To bring in 2 CAcert Senior assurers that also has to do with expenses ...
To bring in 2 Assurers is even possible on a vacation tour ...
To bring in 3 is a KO criteria


 
>  But the first point is the really issue, that I have with this proposal.
 >  It puts a lot of pressure on every person to grant full points.
 >  Especially the nucleus assurer will act like this.

There is no pressure on no one, as the program is designe to have a 100% 
overhead
50% can fail within the process ... the remaining 50% can still succeed


More special questions, ask Ian, maybe he can explain in a better English the 
background
Of the Forth-and-Back in the timeline, as he backed up this special process 
in role as the
former auditor to be a possible direction for a SuperAssurers program 
replacement


Regards, uli    ;-)

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