View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001315 | Main CAcert Website | web of trust | public | 2014-10-27 21:53 | 2014-12-15 21:53 |
| Reporter | INOPIAE | Assigned To | INOPIAE | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 2014 Q4 | ||||
| Target Version | 2015 Q1 | ||||
| Summary | 0001315: Add Nucleus Assurance Programme | ||||
| Description | Once 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 | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Reviewed by | |||||
| Test Instructions | |||||
|
|
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. |
|
|
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)? |
|
|
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. |
| 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 | |
| 2014-12-14 08:14 | Eva | Note Edited: 0005169 | |
| 2014-12-15 13:06 | L10N | Note Added: 0005177 | |
| 2014-12-15 21:53 | Eva | Note Added: 0005183 |
