A better approach to security

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 07/02/2010 23:04, hheigl AT gmx.de wrote:
> Hy,
>
> I have a short question therefore: why wasn't that letter presentet
> BEFORE the AGM (it was dated december 2009)? I know that there was much
> work to do with old issues CAcert have from the past, but if I read this
> I ask myself if it was not a better plan to have started with THAT issue
> within the old board? At this time there was almost 2 month after that
> letter before the new board seem to be starting to deal with that issue...
> So, some of the agenda of the past AGM could have been some points of
> this letter and even for a short update on that issues.


The letter was dealt with in a private meeting (from memory).  This step 
was taken because Oophaga took definate steps to send the letter 
privately, not publically.

The letter also arrived quite late, sometime in January.  Which meant 
that we had little time available for dealing with it.  As you can see 
the letter asked for quite a lot of stuff, and we simply didn't have the 
time to sit down and deal with all those requests.  Also, a lot of what 
was asked for was aligned with the annual report, so the consensus of 
the board was simply to respond with the annual report, which had the 
advantage of being definate information.  Then rethink.

In terms of anything else other than what was in the annual report, it 
is somewhat speculative.  As the board wasn't going to be doing nearly 
anything other than the annual report (a huge effort) until the AGM, it 
was felt that this was a topic for the next (now) board.  Including 
publication (which you can see is a necessary decision for the new board 
not the old one, unless you believe in springing surprises on them).



In terms of presenting it to the association, what are you suggesting? 
The way the GM runs is that business is proposed into the agenda;  what 
would be the business item that you would propose?


> I think Oophaga CLEARLY stated out what CAcert has to do:


That's fine, members and partners and the general world can always state 
what others have to do.  CLEARLY or otherwise.  I think this is a basic 
tenet of freedom of speech, and people are encouraged to get on their 
soap boxes.

It's a different matter however if you have to DO IT.  In this 
community, we are keen on supporting people who are DOING THINGS.

I'm much less interested in people who state what others should do, 
CLEARLY or otherwise.

I'm practically almost entirely interest in asking what people are DOING.

So let me ask you:  what are you DOING?



iang

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