| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 19:47 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > 3) would be good to detect on the less-active devs, and gives good |
| 6 |
> > life-signs to undertakers. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Maybe. However, we're practically talking about one-time check here. |
| 9 |
> Once the key is initially signed (and if the developer ignores GLEP 63 |
| 10 |
> expiration suggestions), there will be no reason to mail him again. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Until now this has seemed like something that didn't require any |
| 13 |
manual developer participation. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Now it is sounding like a proposal that both requires manual |
| 16 |
participation, and may also require manual updating, to avoid |
| 17 |
undertaking. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It seems like it would make far more sense to look at other direct |
| 20 |
measures of activity than how up-to-date their gpg key is in the |
| 21 |
keyservers. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, as far as I'm aware GLEP 63 does not require an encryption key |
| 24 |
at all, just a signing key. I'm not sure if such signing-keys will be |
| 25 |
signed by Gentoo under this proposal. If not then there is nothing to |
| 26 |
upload to the keyserver, and in any case it seems like the main use |
| 27 |
case of this (sending encrypted email) would not apply. Of course it |
| 28 |
could still be used for verifying email signatures if we sign |
| 29 |
signing-only keys. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives