> After thinking about this for a time, I'd rather suggest to > completely remove the feature "Display untrusted keys".
After thinking about this and the poor-language issue in general, I've
come to the following conclusions:
1. I'm absolutely right when I said that we need to only change the
language *once*.
2. Other people are right when they say that we need to change the
language.
So here's what I'm proposing: we revisit the language issue ourselves,
right now. If we wait on a loose consensus process, we're never going
to get anywhere. We have to get out ahead of this, drive this, but our
ultimate decision has to be informed by at least GnuPG, and maybe
Symantec's PGP as well.
The #1 use case is "Untrusted good signature". This is really two
separate statements: "(Non-validated in the certificate sense) (valid in
the signature sense) signature." How should we represent this to the
end-user? If you can't clearly improve on "Untrusted good signature,"
then your proposal's probably not going to fly.
Throw out your best ideas. Don't feel condemned to just using language!
Could icons, user interface elements, etc., better represent this?
As far as timelines go, here's my proposal:
Today -- start discussing better language. The suggestion box is open.
February 14 -- the suggestion box closes. No new entries will be
considered, but discussion continues.
March 1 -- bring the best of the suggestion box to Circumvention. Get
their feedback.
April 1 -- decide on our final language proposal; give it to Werner.
June 1 -- make final decision on new language.
July 1 -- aim for having new language committed to the Enigmail source
tree, ready for next release
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
