I find this habit of throwing the GnuPG developers under the bus, and assigning significant blame to them, very odd, and it is why I sided with them in the first place. I don't like it *one bit.*
To me, the discussions that lead to the draft which was rejected by GnuPG, still seem very clandestine. The GnuPG developers were talking about *real-world* usage, like within Thunderbird, for instance, and how this new draft *broke* compatibility. The WG was *not* talking about real-world use cases. So, why would the GnuPG engineers create a new standard, broken away from the WG, and cause all of this fragmentation, if they *didn't* have technical standing? Are you implying that the GnuPG developers are not *real* engineers? Why would they suddenly cause this schism, after I'd guess almost a *decade* of there not being a schism? From an outside observer, this looks *really bad* for the side of the WG specification designers. The GnuPG developers have raised points regarding half-truths. It seems to me that many proponents of the WG's standard, have been raising half-truths. I *also* see many half truths being raised within other technical discussions, and I *don't* like them whatsoever. Stop throwing GnuPG under the bus. It is destroying the WG's position, in my opinion. And again, I don't disagree with the proposal that we should switch to an OpenPGP tool. I'm just trying to figure out what on earth happened here previously, because it is *weird.* And I'm afraid that it may happen again, to other committees... I wouldn't have even been inclined to dig through GnuPG/IETF's mailing list archives, if GnuPG was *not* thrown under the bus in this manner. It is weirder that many seem insistent on *not* talking about what actually happened here, and to rehash points about how everything is the GnuPG developer's fault. You're saying that these things are *not* for discussion, yet you state that GnuPG is the responsible party. Which one is it? To me, this event, and *this discussion,* just *doesn't* make sense, unless I surmise that something far more *sinister* is occurring here, than how it appears on the surface. One of the LWN links listed by Julian, appears to denote a RedHat engineer deliberately withholding updates to a GnuPG package, due to "incompatibility" reasons. Whether that is a half-truth, or not, may be left for debate, and interpretation. https://lwn.net/Articles/1055053/ The most important thing to note personally, is that it isn't clear to me what exactly these incompatibility issues are. And since it would likely take a great amount of time for me to become a cryptography expert, it isn't *really* feasible for me to know personally. However, I'm still more inclined to trust the GnuPG developers in this case, since they have stated *real-world* incompatibility issues within their emails. This is the primary reason why I'm biased towards them. Considering that RedHat emails are still failing DMARC after a whole *year,* and that others appear to be defending RedHat on the email issue, I now have the inclination to *not* trust RedHat engineers' opinions. I urge *everyone* to dig through, and come to your own conclusions here. This event is *very* significant, and it may foretell *future* events. I won't make further emails regarding this topic. I've said what needed to be said. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
