On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 07:41:00PM -0400, Andres Mejia wrote: > Seeing that my application was rejected due to not having enough signatures, > would now be the best time to simply redo the ID check with the new key?
No, it wasn't rejected, but just set on hold until we work out the situation with the keys, which hopefully won't take long. I'm very happy with all the interaction with your AM and I certainly don't want you to go through it again. As I said, would it be possible for you to get some more signatures? If that is not easy for you to do, please feel free to let me know with some details and I can see if I can help. > Also, if applicants are now required to have their key signed by more than > one > developer, then the document found at [1] should be updated. > 1. http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-checklist Oh dear, indeed. Can you please ping me next week if you don't see it getting fixed? > Here are the fingerprints for both keys. > > Old key > pub 1024D/E5F13196 2007-05-08 > Key fingerprint = 3278 70A0 1696 E190 3AEF 0DD1 82C1 5B02 E5F1 3196 This one is signed by: sig! 06A7376E 2008-05-04 Patrick Ouellette <p...@flying-gecko.net> > New key > pub 4096R/53C854DF 2011-04-07 > Key fingerprint = 2655 978E A053 D586 597F E5D6 3FB9 C78A 53C8 54DF And this one is signed by; sig! F9FDD506 2011-04-23 Luke Faraone <lfara...@debian.org> You could, for example, mail Luke asking him to also sign E5F13196, signing the mail with both keys. Then do the same with Patrick, asking him to also sign 53C854DF. You can write something similar to what people write in "gpg key transition statements". That should get you two signatures on both keys with very minimal effort. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
