Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't get the “wrong place” bits here. There are GPG stuff > needed from the applicant, and I don't see anything that is in the > wrong place.
The instructions to the advocate did not mention GnuPG-signing the advocacy message. Now they do. > > I've now updated the page to describe to the advocate what was > > already recommended in the procedure addressed to the applicant. > > Well, I still fail to see why you're so concerned about the userid. > That very looks like you're referring to the UID as in mail address. Yes, that's what GnuPG refers to as the "userid". > What matters (AFAIUI) is that the signing key is in the Debian > keyring, nothing more, nothing less, and I think it would be better > phrased like that; don't you think? I think that what matters is that the advocate now has a clear recommendation to sign the message at all, where before there was no such recommendation. Further improvements can be made as anyone sees fit, of course. -- \ “I have a large seashell collection, which I keep scattered on | `\ the beaches all over the world. Maybe you've seen it.” —Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
