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

Re: Bits from the DAMs

Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> writes:

> Goswin von Brederlow dijo [Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:55:43PM +0100]:
>> Do you realy think it is difficult to get a second signature onto your
>> gpg key? Go to one key-signing party and you get 10 even on a small
>> one.
> There should be some kind of exemption to this clause, as what you say

Obviously there can be as already mentioned depending on the

> does not always hold. Latin America has grown a lot in DD density, as
> we now have DDs in mostly every country (although there are important
> areas still missing)... But distances are huge. If a prospective DD

The second signature does not need to be a DD. The density of people
with a key inside the web of trust should be bigger than the DD

> lives in Bolivia or Paraguay, he can decide travelling (by land) 3
> _days_ to central Argentina or 4 _days_ to central Chile (and, if Rudy
> Godoy is approved soon, some 2 days to central Perú) - Air travel just
> for a GPG signature is a joke, and most South Americans cannot afford
> spending a minimum of about US$500 just for this. The situation in
> Africa and Asia is similar or even worse.

If you travel to some DD for your first signature I'm sure that DD
knows someone else near himself that can also sign your key giving you
two instant signatures. Think about it. The DD signature is the hard part.

> This last year I travelled a lot in South America, signed a good deal
> of keys, and hope to have contributed enlarging the web of
> trust... However, we are still behind what is ideal. When my Colombian
> friends Luis Fernando Bustamante and Andrés Roldán were accepted as
> DDs, they were not connected to the Debian keyring except by a third
> party who had gnu.org signatures, and when I started NM, I had only
> their signatures. Not everybody can be expected to live or attend a
> conference close to a DD.

See, your second signature was no problem. The DD signature was.

> We do need a path of trust, of course... But we are humans, and our
> processes should have the subjective grain of salt to take these
> points into view.

You and they got it so the procedure obviously works. :)

> Greetings,


Reply to: