View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001315Main CAcert Websiteweb of trustpublic2014-12-15 21:53
ReporterINOPIAE Assigned ToINOPIAE  
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status newResolutionopen 
Product Version2014 Q4 
Target Version2015 Q1 
Summary0001315: Add Nucleus Assurance Programme
DescriptionOnce the policy for the "Nucleus Assurance Programme" is draft the solution should be add to the software.
A first idea of the policy can be found here:
http://wiki.cacert.org/PolicyDrafts/PolicyForNucleus
TagsNo tags attached.
Reviewed by
Test Instructions

Activities

Eva

2014-12-14 08:13

updater   ~0005169

Last edited: 2014-12-14 08:14

View 3 revisions

The linked document was not discussed in PolG or at least not within the last years. It has not even reached WiP status. To assume that it will reach DRAFT status like it is, is quite far fetched, especially as the PolO has found that it violates current policies in multiple ways.

As it is unclear if this document will ever be valid, and chances are high that it will be changed if this kind of policy is accepted by the community (as policies are often adjusted by PolG and especially if the document itself is not in a policy format and does not meet the basic requirements of the PoP), I advice the software team as PolO to not start coding based on this document.

L10N

2014-12-15 13:06

reporter   ~0005177

In my opinion a Nucleus Assurance Programme is important for CAcert. What needs to be changed and by whom (that it takes the shortest way)?

Eva

2014-12-15 21:53

updater   ~0005183

Yes, it is important. But it has to be accepted by the Policy Group. The above linked document was presented to the Policy Officer (me) for a first glance, but there some conflicts with other policies were detected. So chances are high, that this will not pass Policy Group. There were some suggestions made to the authors how to solve this.

However, this is NOT a software issue at the moment. It will be presented to Policy Group which is the correct and only forum for this in due time. There is no sense to discuss it at software level, until Policy agrees to some direction to go.

So currently the fastest way to proceed is to wait until it is presented to the Policy Group, to participate there and when it looks like Policy Group could agree to something, to implement the needed parts - if there are any.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2014-10-27 21:53 INOPIAE New Issue
2014-10-27 21:53 INOPIAE Assigned To => INOPIAE
2014-12-14 08:13 Eva Note Added: 0005169
2014-12-14 08:14 Eva Note Edited: 0005169 View Revisions
2014-12-14 08:14 Eva Note Edited: 0005169 View Revisions
2014-12-15 13:06 L10N Note Added: 0005177
2014-12-15 21:53 Eva Note Added: 0005183