[Linux-aus] Authorised Members (was: Nomination for Ordinary Committee Members)

[Steve Walsh]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Oxer
>Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 3:23 PM
>On 1/6/06, Steve Walsh <steve at nerdvana.org.au> wrote:
>
>...it may be fine for you and me, but many people would find it too
>onerous. If we wanted to restrict LA membership to people who take the
>time to learn how to drive GPG and meet up f2f with a current member
>to be verified, then cool, the WoT would solve the identity problem
>just like it does for Debian and other groups.

Yes, thanks to Jon and Andrew for pointing out the issues I had ignored,
such as distance and travel....

>However, I see Linux Australia as an inclusive organisation, not an
>exclusive one. Even many geeks think GPG is too hard-core for them: in
>a typical LUG only a small percentage will actually have a GPG key and
>be integrated into the global WoT. It's not a matter of it being too
>hard to work out: most people, even highly technically competent ones,
>just aren't interested.

Troo on all points, but I'm not suggesting we exclude people from joining,
I'm just saying we offer a means for people to be "classed" (for want of a
better word) as a verified member. It's the same as me getting a keycard in
the mail, but having to go into a bank to activate it (ignoring that I can't
take money out of the account until I do). It's still a means to prove who I
am (that Keycard still counts as between 20 and 30 points towards 100 points
when proving who I am) but I can function without it. All of my clients know
who I am, but I'm sure if we had pretty ID cards full of key-hashes and big
words they'd be happier.

>It's a pity that we can't use GPG in this scenario: it would be the
>ideal technical solution to the problem. Unfortunately being
>technically ideal doesn't make it socially acceptable.

Just like a RFID tag in your hand :p


Steve