[csw-maintainers] [policy] GPG Signing Key handling

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon Feb 14 20:59:38 -0500 2011:

> Odd... I thought my emails were fairly clear in indicating that the
> existing wording did not adequately describe the situation

After re-reading your original post, I realize that you were pointing
out changes you wished to see.  I did not get that impression
originally.

> 1. Please mention that the key is already redundantly held, by two
> people, not just one.
> 2. Please mention issues around the fact that once a person has the
> key, they RETAIN THE KEY, even after their period of office is over,
> unless we decide to revoke the key's validity globally, and thus force
> all of our users to get a new key for us.

Ok.

> It also may be helpful to explicitly add a "the existing key holders
> are adequate" vote option
> People who read hurriedly, may assume that it is somehow required to
> vote for at least one of those three.

(Ignoring the fact that this is attempting to dumb down the ballot on
the assumption that people won't read it proerly...)  I don't think
this option will fit properly with the rest of the options.  It would
potentially let people say: Keep things the way they are (which is not
part of the proposal anyway)...oh and also do XYZ.  The wording just
needs to be clear that it is perfectly acceptable to select 'no' on
all three questions.

Thanks
-Ben
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302