Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I said, I don't expect every one of these options to exist for
everyone; just that there are many different options beyond personally
owning a scanner, and I believe for the majority of people, at least one
should be viable. And honestly, I
"Dale" == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be
required by the task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be
a reasonable skill to require
Hi.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:29:12 +0200,
with Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the
new maintainer process),
Oliver M . Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
You've not been reading my emails then. I don't
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote:
So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have
had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a
comment on the arrogance of the assumption that one who does not have
convienent access to the latest
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint
or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangles over my
actual driver's license number and social security number. This was
regarded
At 11:09 PM 08/04/2000 +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
And as a side note, I've heard that people were able to do stuff for
the GNU project without depositing urine samples, but then again the
GNU project is probably not as respectable as Debian.
Urine, blood, sweat or tears... almost any bodily
Jim Westveer writes:
On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement
except
that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of
me,
You've not been reading my emails
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint
or the gimp or something to place black censorship rectangles over
Dale wrote:
Matthew Vernon wrote:
Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the
person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw
good ID, and that if I get mail signed/encrypted with that key that it
comes from that person.
While
Hi.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on "Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:55:43 +1000",
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Extrapolations:
1. the new-maintainer process does not trust existing developers;
having your key signed by an existing developer counts for nothing
"counts for nothing" seems to be
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
task at hand? Scanning a passport
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 04:47:31PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Why do you continue to confuse the issue by bringing in the onerous task
furphy? It is all about trust.
Well, I agree that I trust a keysigner, and that trust allows me to accept
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Folks,
I have been reading this thread for far too long
Point and counter-point; Feignt and thrust; Whine and counter-whine
I just recently exited the NM que. I had to jump through all the hoops.
And you know what? I agreed with every one
Anand Kumria wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
...Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
require of incoming members. Isn't it?
No. Why should being a
Dale Scheetz writes:
It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
require of incoming members. Isn't it?
No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get
hold of a scanner?
(I have subscribed this list, so cc to me is not needed)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:49:42 +0200,
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes that
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here,
since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited)
knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text
below because it seems to
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
require of incoming members. Isn't it?
No. Why should being a debian
Hi,
this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to
comment on.
Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project,
resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups
the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_
oversimplification
"Gopal" == Gopal Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gopal On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
office about providing
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the
person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw
good ID, and that if I get mail
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
require of
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:14:51PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
office about providing your
Previously William Ono wrote:
This point comes up over and over, and every time someone has to point
out that alternative methods of getting the photograph digitized are
available. Whenever this issue comes up with one of my applicants, I
offer to accept hardcopy by snail-mail and scan
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the
applicant closes the eye/hand loop.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here.
think you missing, or overlooking three very important things.
Every applicant must provide an image file of a photograph
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Jens Müller wrote:
Please choose ONE debian-* list!
Sorry but there isn't ONE debian-* list!
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed:
} On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
} about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
} technical argument (the applicant does not have access to scanners,
} etc...) to be as weak,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
Wouldn't libraries and other such places usually have scanners for public
access (or maybe, if they're clueless or harassed libraries, free access
Not round here. Printers probably would, though they might not be
enthused
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
about the difficulties of providing
On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a
lack of "connectedness" with the "technological" society they wish to
enter.
While I'm not arguing
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
[Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
I've just dropped it this time.
I don't own a scanner. I know several friends who do, and under extreeme
That depends on who you know and what
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a
lack of "connectedness" with the
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
the signature on their key) coupled with the
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
If you absolutely can't get hold of a scanner, take a (analog) photo
of your ID, have it developed in any number of online places or your
next-door photo shop, that would give you a CDROM with all your
photos.. Sheesh.
Sure,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed:
} On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
} about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
} technical argument (the
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[Reply-To: set to
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to
trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of
aspiring Debian developers.
Trusting developers doesn't seem to be an issue at all. No
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
have access to scanners, etc...) to be
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 06:38:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to
trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of
aspiring Debian
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
Membership is a privilege,
The privilege to work, or what?
IMO the privilege to be trusted to contribute to Debian, represent it well
and to adhere to the social contract
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
Membership is a privilege,
The privilege to work, or what?
IMO the privilege to be trusted to contribute
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes that being part
of Debian is a "privilege" that needs to be protected by people who
probably want to abuse it.[1] The only privileges you have as a Debian
maintainer
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
Membership is a privilege,
The privilege to work, or
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:53:36PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
office about providing your passport photos, do you? If you need to
Actually I do -- but that is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcus Brinkmann writes:
Hello,
A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by
all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to
Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute,
directly or
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 09:09:39PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by
all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to
Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute,
directly or
Anand Kumria wrote:
I don't know when you asked Dale but the procedures are quite clear that
"An image file of an appropriate piece of photo-identification" (from
URL: http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2 is required.
Yes! We want (as a group) to see the id. The fact that a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
It depends on what sort of stuff you do. Unless you actually want to
scan in images there's no reason to have a scanner. Computers, net
connections - these things we can expect people to have access to.
Scanners just aren't so
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:28:28PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The people who signed keys said themselves that they could not with any
sureness identify someone who's key they signed once, long ago. We
realized, after some debate, that the fact that the developer in question
_did_ see a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
[Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
Am I the only one who has constant trouble getting the Debian listserver
to acknowledge my requests? In the past I've been ignored when trying
to subscribe and unsubscribe from various
However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
that I do infact, possess that private key.
Well indeed, but I'd expect to get a gpg-signed mail from my applicant
as part of step 2, and I could then check the signature.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the
applicant closes the eye/hand loop. Neither is sufficient without the
other.
But
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here.
think you missing, or overlooking three very important things.
Every applicant must provide an image file of a photograph of themselves,
most desired is a passport or a
- Original Message -
From: "Anand Kumria" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Dale Scheetz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please choose ONE debian-* list!
Jens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Dale Scheetz wrote:
I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling
to show us their face?
gpg -kvv espy |grep -v Klecker
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previously Jim Westveer wrote:
However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
that I do infact, possess that private key.
Signing an arbitrary something proves that just as well. For example
a package, the output of fortune, etc.
Wichert.
--
59 matches
Mail list logo
