cacert-sysadm AT lists.cacert.org
Subject: CAcert System Admins discussion list
List archive
- From: Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>
- To: cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
- Cc: "CAcert Code Development list." <cacert-devel AT lists.cacert.org>, CAcert System Administrators <cacert-sysadm AT lists.cacert.org>
- Subject: Re: SP => POLICY?
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:55:04 +1100
- Authentication-results: lists.cacert.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i= AT cacert.org; dkim-asp=none
On the whole, I feel there hasn't been enough attention to this question, with only 3 votes. Especially, none of the people & teams who are effected by SecurityPolicy have commented.
So I'll cast this wider and add the appropriate team lists for more comments. Please make sure you CC votes or comments back to Policy list. Apologies for multiple copies in advance!
Security Policy / critical teams, please comment:
iang
On 23/03/2010 08:13, Ian G wrote:
According to PoP, a policy can only be in DRAFT for a year ...
Security Policy reaches this milestone this Saturday, following p20090327.
https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/SecurityPolicy.html
Now, there are some marked up suggestions in BLUE that have not been
voted upon. These basically add an "Application Engineer" who is
responsible for the application. We would need to make a bit of a
decision here as to which way we want to go.
1. Keep SP in DRAFT for another period, and
re-work those BLUE sections.
2. Accept the BLUE, and go to POLICY.
3. Discard the BLUE as not voted, and go to POLICY.
4. Or?
What do policy group people vote for?
iang
PS: Green should disappear.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
- Re: SP => POLICY?, Ian G, 03/26/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.