[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: key signing request - Nijmegen, The Netherlands

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:45:26AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2001 16:42, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > On Monday 12 February 2001 16:05, Peter van Rossum wrote:
> > > I am trying to become a Debian developper. 
> > > [...]
> > > this means I'd like to have my public key
> > > signed by some current member of Debian. Is there someone
> > > in Nijmegen, The Netherlands or somewhere near (i.e. anywhere
> > > else in The Netherlands :-)) willing to help me?
> > [...]
> > Would a sign from a developer-to-be do? In any case, if there is going
> > to be a key-signing at the Univ. of Nijmegen i'll be there...
> Firstly I suggest Utrecht instead of Nijmegen as it's apparently more 
> conveniant for many people to get to.

That's true. If we're going to have a meeting with several people
from all over the country (:-)), then Utrecht is probably much
easier to reach then Nijmegen. If there are more people in the Netherlands
who want their key signed (and if the meeting referred to below
isn't going to take place soon), then I'll propose a date, time, and
place to meet.

> Also there has been talk of having a Debian Developers meeting in the 
> Netherlands soon, such meetings usually start out at the Utrecht CS meeting 
> point.  At such a meeting you should be able to get 5 or more active 
> developers to sign your key (I'll do it if no-one else).
> Wichert, when shall we have the next meeting?

Besides the fact that this is an easy way to get my (and other peoples')
keys signed, I very much like the idea of actually meeting some of the
developpers (and prospective developpers) of Debian in The Netherlands. 

Peter van Rossum, Department of Mathematics, University of Nijmegen, 
Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Phone: +31-24-3652997,
E-mail: petervr@sci.kun.nl, Gpg key fingerprint: 0A8B DC57 8340 AC3B 4D20
46C7 623E 49E0 876B 252F (see http://www.gnupg.org).

Reply to: