3 ms·
This is actually pretty accurate. Worth noting is that the choice to move on with the rfc process was made very deliberately: there was a large thread on the m
by Valodim 3y ago
This is actually pretty accurate.
Worth noting is that the choice to move on with the rfc process was made very deliberately: there was a large thread on the mailing list to try and find a compromise. In this discussion, Werner Koch's negotiation standpoint basically required things to go 100% his way. The choices for the working group chairs ultimately boiled down to:
1. Closing down the wg with no result.
2. Moving on as a mostly functioning working group, at the cost of leaving Werner/GnuPG in the rough.
3. Reverting everything to the way Werner preferred.
None of those were great options, obviously.
Note that for option 3, the draft that is now LibrePGP and which was edited by Werner until circa 2020, had spectacularly failed to gather support and achieve consensus back then, and effectively stalled the working group for years. The LibrePGP project now claims that this draft was "the last consensus" of the working group, but at that time the reality was that Werner had gotten pretty used to just committing to master of the spec draft whatever he felt like, instead of seeking group consensus.
At the moment there doesn't seem to be a chance for the parties to come to an agreement. I'm curious to see how this develops.
- jll29 3y agoPeople should agree that if there is no consensus reachable within the group of experts, an external advisor (e.g. Bruce Schneier, Ross Anderson) should be consulted. They may not be automatically "right", but such an agreement could re-stablish focus and avoid division or, worse, ending the worthwhile group's activities. Nothing is worse than open source people not reaching consensus and moving on, because nothing will make the enemy of privacy more happy.