On Sat, November 8, 2014 17:09, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > We had hoped to be down to a small number of special cases to deal with > by this point, but with the numbers still looking this bad we're not > yet at a stage where we can work out appropriate next steps for those > special cases.
In the list you post, I see lots of names of people I know to be inactive for years now. Removing all those keys from the ring would therefore maybe not be such a disaster, because the majority is no longer regularly contributing to Debian. To make this a bit more concrete, I've matched the uids against echelon, and this is the outcome: 160 2014 42 2013 54 2012 31 2011 24 2010 31 2009 21 2008 17 2007 7 2006 5 2005 2 2004 1 2003 1 2002 So 160 keys were used this year, which is cause for concern if they are removed. However, it means 236 keys have not seen use in 2014 yet. And of those 160 keys have been used most recently in 2011; of those we can be rather certain that removing their key from the ring actually confirms the status quo rather than disrupt it. It therefore makes sense not to focus on the number of 436, but on the ones that have actually been used in 2014; get that first number of 160 closer to 0. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/edbe948c76a3d7abd9d0f5d126b237f9.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl