1 |
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:18:32AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> > option a) |
3 |
> > 2 years + N: |
4 |
> > 2 weeks <= N <= 3 months. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > option b) |
7 |
> > Change the wording to be 'at most 2 years' instead of 'exactly 2 years'. |
8 |
> That *is* the wording. |
9 |
I apologize. I took ulm's post as canonical and didn't confirm in the |
10 |
original GLEP text. |
11 |
|
12 |
Further change to follow in response to the original text. |
13 |
|
14 |
> > Separately: |
15 |
> > Is two weeks enough time for a new key distribution to users? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I originally wanted to specify one month but k_f insisted on something |
18 |
> shorter. 2 weeks were the compromise we agreed on. That said, I'd say |
19 |
> weekly 'gpg --refresh' is what we should recommend as the bare minimum. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> That said, the point of two weeks is mostly to give us time to remind |
22 |
> developers that their key is expiring and to give them time to actually |
23 |
> read their mail and do it before it actually expires. |
24 |
Please let's start reminding them BEFORE that. I have seen a lot of |
25 |
.away files over the last decade, and taking a 2-week offline vacation |
26 |
does happen. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
30 |
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer |
31 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
32 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
33 |
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 |