BAD keysigning -- news

Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:17:58 -0700

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 07:41:20PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> [ added to distribution.  My posting address is not
> subscribed to the BAD list.]
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:40:29PM -0700, Dmitriy wrote:
> > I'm not sure there is a point to this, since almost everyone already
> > uploaded their sigs on keserver... :-(
> I expect everyone to have the decency to respect the considerable amount=
> of time I've devoted to this matter, by providing me with the signatures
> required to complete the job.  That includes, of course, you -- who have
> thus far not done that.
I was just hoping to save you extra work, and in no way show my
disrespect of the effort you put into this.

> > Most people agreed to this in the discussion, that since no-one voiced
> > objections to keys being uploaded, there is not much use to spend time=
> > making the merged keyring.
> That, of course, would be _my_ time we're talking about.  Time that I've
> volunteered in advance, per a protocol everyone understood I would be=20
> carrying out. =20
> > (not just IMO, several other people said the same thing, so I guess
> > you better spend more time prepearing for presentation) :-)
It wasn't really my decision, I just was more or less informed of it
by several other people, who suggested I and everyone else should do
the same.

> I will, obviously, be putting together the signed keyring _after_ Wednesd=
> morning.  But I lavished some of my sparse time, this morning, to put
> together a substitute keyring already.  Which brings me to my other point:
> Numerous people on the keyring and on the BAD mailing list have my teleph=
> numbers, including cellular.  Yet, nobody saw fit to call me to suggest I=
> not bother working on the keyring, on grounds that "almost everyone" made
> some alleged private decision to blow away their commitment to me and upl=
> signatures to a keyserver.
> Why is this?  Are you people valuing at cost something (my time and effor=
> that you've been getting free of charge?  Ordinarily, I would not expect =
> find that regrettable trait among the Linux community.

I fully respect the time you put into this, and was just trying to
save you further work.  And someone mentioned you were very busy
(personally I didn't have your number), so maybe they didn't want to
take more of your time, when they knew you were busy.

> This would not be my first disappointment of the day:  Karsten informs me=
> at least one of my backup MXes is auto-bouncing all my mail.  (Note that a
> backup MX that auto-bounces one's mail is considerably worse than no back=
> MX.)
> Anyhow, despite the no doubt compelling fact that you and unspecified oth=
> made a snap decision to do otherwise (without the courtesy of bothering t=
> let me know), my request of this morning stands.  If you folks decide you
> aren't going to bother, I'll remember that next time I'm tempted to volun=
> for anything around here.
Actually that wasn't my decision, I was more or less just informed=20
of that and people suggesed I do the same.

I respect the work you did, and in no way want to say that "oh well,
we don't care about your work anymore"

I was merely informing you of the state of things.
I am sorry if you deemed it offensive in any way.

> -- Rick M.
P.S.  English is not my native language, and sometimes some of the
things I am trying to say are not exactly what people read. Sorry

	GPG key-id: 1024D/5BE3DCFD                 Dmitriy
	CCAB 5F17 A099 9E43 1DBE  295C 9A21 2F1C 5BE3 DCFD
	Adobe put Dmitry in jail for the crime against=20
	society of revealing that they were selling=20
	ROT-13 as "encryption." He is rotting in US rison=20
	as a political prisoner for speaking out.=20
	Free Dmitry Sklyarov!

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see