Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I am actually quite ambivalent about whether I think what he did was >> wrong; I think to determine that I would need to read carefully what >> the KSP organizers said. Martin certainly should follow the protocols >> established, but I would only count "established" as being what is >> actually written down by the KSP organizers, and not just some kind of >> general unspoken expectation. (Where can I read about those written >> protocols, if there are any?) > > From http://debconf6.debconf.org/ksp/ksp-dc6.html: > > " The next step is to verify each participant's identity by checking > preferably a passport or, alternatively, some other form of government > issued ID. Please don't show very old, doubtful or easy-to-fake documents as > people will not sign your key if you do so. " > > I guess that answers the questions you brought up in your e-mail. An ID from > a political party is *not* a government issued ID and *is* a doubtful > document.
Indeed, but it doesn't sound like he violated the rules. This was worded as a suggestion, not as a demand. Indeed, notice that the people who signed the key violated it just as much as he did. Where is the hue and cry against them? I still want to know who they are, because it is *their* signatures I have to start distrusting. Thomas