Hi, Just a thought: Have a "Star chamber" meeting for the technical group, invitation only. After that have a 1/2 to 1 hour session open to all where the technical people can present their progress and invite comment. This way you have a focused working session with the key people, but maintain community trust by allowing general input.
Thanks, Bob Cavanaugh > -----Original Message----- > From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of > fmv1...@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:24 AM > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org; n...@enigmail.net > Subject: Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200 > > From: "n...@enigmail.net" <n...@enigmail.net> > > To: GnuPG-Users <Gnupg-users@gnupg.org> > > Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit? > > Message-ID: <55cadd38.5030...@enigmail.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > Hi all, > > > > in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit. > > It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools > > dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption met to getting > > to know each other personally and discuss several issues. > > For details, see e.g. > > - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html > > - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html > > > > The meting initially was organized by me to bring together a few > > guys/projects working in that area, but it became pretty big (about 30 > > people). This caused some problems, because we had a host with limited > > space (so I finally even had to reject some people wanting to attend). > > > > We also discussed there how to continue. > > On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that anybody > wanting > > to attend could do that and to give trust by transparency. > > On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus on technical > > issues (having a well signal to noise ratio) in a not-too-large group > > of "experts". > > We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both interests. > > > > Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year. > > And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue. > > > > What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public but with > > some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another is simply > > limited space although I don't know where we can meet this time). > > For example: > > - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting > > - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join > > the first meeting > > (but how do we handle that?) > > - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role" > > in the community > > - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally > > send only 1 or 2 guys > > > > The obvious other option is to open the meeting to everybody willing > > to come, which raises a couple of risks (simply too many people, too > > many non-experts or people who want to change the focus, ...). > > > > So, my questions are: > > ===================== > > > > Is it OK for the public/community, if we meet in a way that is limited > > as describe above (just for practical reasons)? > > > > Is it OK even if we can't promise full transparency (e.g. by video > > taping sessions)? > > > > Would it even be OK, if we meet and constraint what is spoken there to > > the Chatham House Rule (see > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule). > > Some people requested that because > > if anything they say might become public, they might or even have to > > be careful what they say. > > > > Any general thoughts or proposals about how to deal with this? > > > > Note that I don't want to have it too complicated. > > I organize this meeting in my free time to bring the issues of this > > community forward. > > And just having too many people is already a problem. > > I need an approach I can handle. > > Or is it better to have no meeting at all instead of a meeting with > > some limitations? > > > > Best > > Nico > > > > Dear Nico, > > I think you are trying to achieve a compromise that is not possible. If I > understood correctly you are trying to reconcile developers interest with > layman's enthusiasm. I myself belong to the second group. > A good idea would be to organize one event for the developers and another > open event so everyone can join. Then I think everybody would be happy. > Note that some overlap between groups is expected and healthy for the > community. > > Kind regards, > > -- > Felipe Martins Vieira > Public PGP key: http://pgp.surfnet.nl > Key Fingerprint: 9640 F192 63DA D637 6750 AC08 7BCA 19BB 0E69 E45D _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users