On 2011-12-18 at 12:22 -0800, Lynda wrote: > Wait. What? I've been assigned to arbitration? Yes, I've already sent > them an email, accusing them of insanity (and I meant every word), but > if anyone knows ANYTHING about convincing them that this is not the way > to win friends and influence people, I'd be grateful.
CACert is all about processes, procedures and bureaucracy. In a way, they *have* to be, because they're asking to be trusted as a Certificate Authority despite working on a distributed web-of-trust model (with critical central servers for points, etc). The use of the word "arbitration" is stupid, but I recall that somewhere in their FAQs is an item pointing out that this is normal, not to worry, it's just their word for sorting out anything non-trivial that's not normal, etc. Alas, if you call a rose a turd, the mental smell is not as sweet. Part of the issue is that if you've issued points to someone else, acting as an assurer, then you have legal liability for the attestation (including financial liability of something like $1k if someone challenges points issued and you can't provide the paperwork to show that you took due care is issuing points). Thus you need to remain reachable. If you decide to not be reachable, they probably need to do something like revoke all assurance points you've issued. I don't know for sure, but the details will be somewhere in the documentation. Using CACert is not like PGP. In effect, you're taking on the duties of a notary public, but without any major upsides. Except that it does provide for a web-of-trust for CA identity assurance, so I've stuck with it and issued points, and kept the relevant paperwork safely filed, as required, etc. Dear $deity, the mailing-list is full of wannabe-wonks though. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
