| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 06.01.2017 kell 13:17, kirjutas Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Ühel kenal päeval, R, 06.01.2017 kell 11:30, kirjutas Yury German: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > OK we can do all of that. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Would a notary document verifying the person that is Mailed to a |
| 10 |
> > > party (pick an address and a responsible person), be enough to |
| 11 |
> > > authenticate the person for the original GPG Web of Trust? In my |
| 12 |
> > > opinion if lets say I was the one receiving the document that has |
| 13 |
> > > be |
| 14 |
> > > signed by a notary public, with a GPG key fingerprint on that |
| 15 |
> > > form, |
| 16 |
> > > and a photo verification by the Notary (Legally binding |
| 17 |
> > > document). |
| 18 |
> > > Then I would say that they are who they say they are. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > Any opinions? |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > This is just insane. We already suffer with unwillingness of people |
| 23 |
> > to |
| 24 |
> > become a developer with all the process involved. Until these are |
| 25 |
> > resolved, throwing more in is just unacceptable. Period. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Note that my questions RE notarys were intended to indicate what |
| 29 |
> is/isn't possible, not to suggest that we should require this. This |
| 30 |
> is just a discussion. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Lets say I was trying to shut down the serious ponderings towards it, |
| 33 |
before it continues to implementation :D |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> I do agree with the overall sentiment that we need to keep things |
| 36 |
> light if we want more contributors, which has historically been a |
| 37 |
> bigger problem than people falsifying their identities. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Yeah, and I'm saying none of this extra burden makes sense indeed. |
| 40 |
I can fully encourage building such a web of trust, i.e, if you happen |
| 41 |
to meet another dev, please do sign eachothers keys over beer, proving |
| 42 |
you did so. Hopefully over good beer or beverage of choice. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Don't make it any sort of requirement for joining the ranks of a full |
| 45 |
developer with push access. We have enough hurdles. We are not |
| 46 |
assigning copyrights away to some foundation, there is no legal |
| 47 |
verification towards a person needed right now, that I'm aware of. If |
| 48 |
there are serious copyright related issues that can't be resolved, we |
| 49 |
get to remove work contributed by the person either way. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
We do want to know the how they work together with others and so on, |
| 52 |
which the current processes seems to work mostly fine for, as these |
| 53 |
kind of problems seem to be evident in long time members only right |
| 54 |
now. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
This also answers titanofold - I meant you don't need to know who I am |
| 57 |
with legal certainty wrt my real name and whatnot; I didn't mean you |
| 58 |
don't need to know my character and whatnot. This is tied to my IRC and |
| 59 |
dev accounts. |
Archives