How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?

fmv1992 at fmv1992 at
Wed Aug 12 14:24:09 CEST 2015

> ------------------------------
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200
> From: "nico at" <nico at>
> To: GnuPG-Users <Gnupg-users at>
> Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
> Message-ID: <55CADD38.5030603 at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Hi all,
> in April 2015 we had a first OpenPGP summit.
> It was a meeting where the technical experts of projects and tools
> dealing with OpenPGP with a focus on email encryption
> met to getting to know each other personally and
> discuss several issues.
> For details, see e.g.
> -
> -
> The meting initially was organized by me to bring together
> a few guys/projects working in that area, but it became
> pretty big (about 30 people). This caused some problems,
> because we had a host with limited space (so I finally
> even had to reject some people wanting to attend).
> We also discussed there how to continue.
> On one hand we wanted to have the meeting open so that
> anybody wanting to attend could do that and to give trust
> by transparency.
> On the other hand we want to be able to continue to focus
> on technical issues (having a well signal to noise ratio)
> in a not-too-large group of "experts".
> We didn't find an appropriate way yet to deal with both
> interests.
> Now, I am about to organize a second meeting at the end of this year.
> And I want to take the "wisdom" of this crowd to discuss this issue.
> What I currently have in mind is a meeting open to the public
> but with some limitations (one reason is to focus the work, another
> is simply limited space although I don't know where we can meet
> this time).
> For example:
> - Some priority for those who did attend the first meeting
> - Some priority for "other experts", which didn't join
>   the first meeting
>   (but how do we handle that?)
> - Some limitations that a person plays a "significant role"
>   in the community
> - Some limitation so that a tool/project should normally
>   send only 1 or 2 guys
> The obvious other option is to open the meeting to
> everybody willing to come, which raises a couple of risks
> (simply too many people, too many non-experts or people
>  who want to change the focus, ...).
> So, my questions are:
> =====================
> Is it OK for the public/community, if we meet in a way
> that is limited as describe above (just for practical reasons)?
> Is it OK even if we can't promise full transparency (e.g. by video
> taping sessions)?
> Would it even be OK, if we meet and constraint what is spoken there
> to the Chatham House Rule (see
> Some people requested that because
> if anything they say might become public, they might or even
> have to be careful what they say.
> Any general thoughts or proposals about how to deal with this?
> Note that I don't want to have it too complicated.
> I organize this meeting in my free time to bring the issues
> of this community forward.
> And just having too many people is already a problem.
> I need an approach I can handle.
> Or is it better to have no meeting at all instead of a meeting
> with some limitations?
> Best
>  Nico

Dear Nico,

I think you are trying to achieve a compromise that is not possible. If I understood correctly
you are trying to reconcile developers interest with layman's enthusiasm. I myself belong to
the second group.
A good idea would be to organize one event for the developers and another open event so
everyone can join. Then I think everybody would be happy. Note that some overlap between groups
is expected and healthy for the community.

Kind regards,

Felipe Martins Vieira
Public PGP key:
Key Fingerprint: 9640 F192 63DA D637 6750 AC08 7BCA 19BB 0E69 E45D

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150812/0cadbe06/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list