Policy-Discussion

[Brian McCullough <bdmc AT bdmcc-us.com>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 02:59:36PM +0100, Bernd Jantzen wrote:
> +1 from my side.
> I completely agree with Alex' statements and considerations. And also Eva 
> and
> Ian have pointed out similar things in their discussion on the cacert-board 
> list
> six days ago.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, Policy Group might well think about rewriting DRP or - as
> Alex suggested - adding another policy in order to elaborate in a clearer 
> way
> how the three heads of power at CAcert (CAcert Inc. represented by its 
> board,
> Policy Group and Arbitration) actually share the power in between them. This
> reflects some of Marcus' points:
> 
>   * How to install an arbitrator?
>   * How to choose an arbitrator for a dispute case?
>   * How to remove/dismiss an arbitrator from a dispute case?
>   * How to remove/dismiss an arbitrator from the pool of arbitrators?
>   * Who is the legal body who is responsible for the DRP and the CA?
> 
> Having this clear is especially important when it comes to conflicts such as
> board trying to remove Arbitrators or trying to handle disputes outside of 
> DRP.
> Such a conflict is currently paralyzing CAcert. So a clearer notion of how 
> such
> conflicts should be handled would help in the resolution of the current and
> future conflicts of that kind.

However a problem with this approach is that if we attempt to codify
every possible problem and its solution in any of our policies, then we
easily run the risk of missing something and being unable to handle a
particular situation.

Having the policies written in broad strokes, rather than trying to
specify every detail, allows adaptation to a particular event or issue.

This has been seen time and again, and more recently discussed in this
list and more particularly in the members' list, as the difference
between English Common Law and that found in France and Germany, among
other countries.

When certain principles are stated as part of our policies, and the
organisation and its members, whoever they may be, whether, in our case
those specifically "Members" of the Inc. or members of the Community,
all agree to adhere to those principles, then, usually, we can all work
together, and, if disputes arise, the Independent Judiciary, in our case
Arbitrators, can use those principles to provide an interpretation of
the issues and a suitable resolution.  ( I know, a long, run-on
sentence. )


A fairly public example is the US Supreme Court, whose members, as I
understand, are appointed through a certain amount of cooperation
between the current President and the Legislature, but forever afterward
are untouchable, and are only removed through their own retirement.

One President's appointees continue long after that President has been
replaced by one or more others.




> > A couple of additional thoughts that this group might want to consider:-
> >
> > 1) Should the current roles of DRO and PolO be appointments from Board or
> > should they be solely by the groups (arbitratation and policy group) 
> > involved
> > - this is relevant to the concept of separation of heads of power. 
> > (Neither
> > the current PolO nor the DRO positions should depend on the "grace and 
> > favour"
> > of another head of power)
> >
> > 2) It might be a good idea to formalize the concept of the separation of 
> > the
> > heads of power as a new policy - the concept works reasonably well in the 
> > real
> > world. A new policy could also clarify and document the methods of 
> > appointment
> > and removal of holders of office and membership in each of the heads of 
> > power.

Because of our current situation, I think that I agree with Alex on his
second proposal, but this will definitely take much discussion to
properly find a solution.



> > Regards
> > Alex


Thank you,
Brian