On 4/21/08, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2008, at 19:29, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > > On 4/21/08, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Remind me... where do we stand on having released > > > signed by a key without a web of trust?--I've never > > > made it to any key-signing events. :( > > > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > It isn't a problem. > > > > It isn't? > <snip/>
Risks are mitigated to an arguably acceptable level by wrappering the entire release process at Apache around the point to point secure transport guarantee that signing is meant to provide. I am generally hesitant to introduce any more overhead for folks to step up to RM'ing releases than is strictly necessary, given that this community needs a lot more of 'em. > Happy to do just the signing of the release. <snap/> The amount of security rigor applied that would cause an unsigned key to be a blocking factor for signing releases would probably also discount the above from being acceptable. As one data point of the operational reality, there were several artifacts released using my key which was unsigned for years until a little over a week ago. Finally, from reading Matt's email at the top of the thread I did get the sense that he was keen on getting his key signed, so I didn't stress that any further. -Rahul > ...if I can get my gpg to work properly again (...currently struggling with > gpg1 -> gpg2 migration *sigh*) > > cheers > -- > Torsten > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
