Policy-Discussion

[Eva Stöwe <eva.stoewe AT cacert.org>]

Dear Ulrich,

>>  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

please read what I have written. I did not write, that there should be a
3rd assurer. If there would be a 3rd assurer, we would not need the
policy at all!

But: Something being against the AP IS a KO criterium. As the AP tells
us that a Sub-Policy may not violate the AP.

Which it would do if anybody assures without being assured by 3 assurer
previously. THIS is what the AP asks for.


-- 
external email-address: 
katzazi AT gmx.de

PGP: 157D 27C5 CC2C 1039 27B6 72D6 D457 3B37 0DEE BB3B
x509: AF:03:3C:FC:49:9F:F9:5A:14:D0:2B:57:4E:4E:D4:6A:A6:2C:82:0E

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature