How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?

[Bob (Robert) Cavanaugh]

Hi,
Just a thought: Have a "Star chamber" meeting for the technical group, invitation only. After that have a 1/2 to 1 hour session open to all where the technical people can present their progress and invite comment. This way you have a focused working session with the key people, but maintain community trust by allowing general input.

Thanks,
 
Bob Cavanaugh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org] On Behalf Of
> fmv1992 at gmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:24 AM
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org; nico at enigmail.net
> Subject: Re: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
> 
> 
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:44:24 +0200
> > From: "nico at enigmail.net" <nico at enigmail.net>
> > To: GnuPG-Users <Gnupg-users at gnupg.org>
> > Subject: How to deal with a 2nd OpenPGP Summit?
> > Message-ID: <55CADD38.5030603 at enigmail.net>
> > 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.
> > - https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20150426-openpgp-summit.html
> > - https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-04-20_OpenPGP_Email_Summit.html
> >
> > 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
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule).
> > 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: http://pgp.surfnet.nl
> Key Fingerprint: 9640 F192 63DA D637 6750 AC08 7BCA 19BB 0E69 E45D