Answers

[Volker Diels-Grabsch]

we received a lot of questions and said to answer them all.
Many questions are of same or similar content and we decided to give the
answers in the wiki.

[...]

https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers01

Maybe I'm not the target audience, but I can't make any sense out of
that wiki page.

1) I don't see *any* interesting questions being answered there. Is
this meant to address the issues raised by Eva Stöwe in the last
months?

2) The text uses an almost incomprehensible language. Do you expect
this to be read only by lawyers?

3) The wiki page is badly structured. There is no clear partition
into questions and answers. And this wild combination of bold and
non-bold texts doesn't add any clarity, either.

It's not that Eva's emails are a showpiece of good writing. Her texts
are overly long, filled with distracting details. But at least she
writes in a clear language that can be understood by everyone.

Maybe I'm really missing the point. But as a layman observer, I see
that Eva expresses her concerns in a way that I can understand, while
all public CAcert board responses so far look like gibberish to me.
To me, it isn't even clear whether the board disagree with Eva's
stated facts, or just with her interpretation of the facts. So I
don't even see where exactly the conflict is.

I would really appreciate if the CAcert board could provide direct,
clear responses to the issues raised by Eva. And with "clear" I mean
responses which are meant to be understood layman, non-lawyer
community members.


Regards,
Volker

[Yuri Nazarov]

Dear Reader of these mailinglists,
we received a lot of questions and said to answer them all.
Many questions are of same or similar content and we decided to give the
answers in the wiki.
One of the most important things is the judicial framework on which
CAcert Inc.
is based on.
Please take your time and check the given links in
https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/answers01

There is strong correlation between the answers01 page, and a recent
submission to Policy Group made by CAcert Inc. secretary on behalf of
the board:
<https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-policy/2016-03/msg00006.html>
<https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/proposal/DRP_Request_For_Change>

Looking at the answers01 page in the light of this submission to
Policy Group, one can note that the answers01 page contains both the
actual current state as well as the proposed changes, mixed both
together.

I thing it is very important to clearly separate and clearly identify
proposed changes as such, and especially so in a page intended to
provide "one of the most important things is the judicial framework on
which CAcert Inc. is based on."


Thanks,
Yuri