Policy-Discussion

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

Just to make it completely clear what the difference is:

If you say that it does not matter WHEN someone is assured by others if
to become an assurer and that we just can move the time back and forth,
if someone within CAcert says so and waves a "Special Situation" wand
around and gives people just a number of points, you could also do the
following:

Just take 2 random people somewhere on the world and say that they may
assure all their friends for 50 points as long as they take care that
people are also assuring each other and themselves. After [some time]
remove the 50 points.

This would work in the same way that you are asking for. It would follow
the same arguments.

I do not say that this could not be an interesting approach. BUT it
would not be the assurance that we currently do: To only become an
assurer if you are assured by people who are assurer.

[Actually the AP allows assurances by non-assurer for 2 points, so if
you want to go that way, you again do not need the Nucleus Program if
you have enough people. Not sure if it was only for assuring assurer.]

Kind regards,
Eva



On 02.03.2016 10:19, Eva Stöwe wrote:
> 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