Hi Guy, We’ve been working on preparing a first draft for the specification of the protocol. Once our first draft is ready and reviewed, we will open it for public review on this list. However, the current state of the specification draft is not mature enough to be open for public review. It would be a better use of everyone’s time if we waited until we could show them a substantial, mature draft. As I’m sure you understand, these things take time, and we need to make sure we have something substantial before we ask everyone on this list to generously contribute their time to review our proposed spec.
Later this April we are organizing a summit here in Montreal to invite visiting cryptographers to review and comment on our first draft before we open it for public review. I see that you work for Mega — one of your colleagues (Ximin Luo) was already invited to this summit, so surely we haven’t been as “fishy” as you suggest, and I’m not sure why you seem to be complaining about a lack of involvement. Regarding our upcoming summit, we’ve taken care to invite a mix of theory-focused, implementation-focused and usability-focused individuals so that we can use that summit to make sure we have something substantial to present for public review in May. Rest assured that once we’ve done all the polishing we can, we will open a draft for public review in order to incorporate comments and suggestions. Thanks, NK On Mar 27, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Guy K. Kloss <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > in January there was quite some chatter here on mpOTR, and it seemed > like quite a few people had an interest in it. > > Then there was a call for participation by Nadim to get involved on it. > I've seen that there were some messages offering to collaborate (at > least publicly on the list by Dennis and myself). It seemed like nobody > has ever acknowledged our proposal (at least I have never seen a mail). > > Then there was an mpOTR project plan [0], which magically appeared on > the Cryptocat blog, without being mentioned anywhere on the OTR-dev > mailing list. I just stumbled upon it accidentally. > > According to the timeline, there were supposed to be some deliverables > already by March/April (which is pretty much now), but there was > *nothing* to be heard anywhere! > > I don't know how the project is supposed to be run, or what's happening. > But it seems like for a collaborative, public, community project, > something looks fishy from the outside. > > We have the need for mpOTR (or something like it), and have offered help > to make it happen. Even though we need something more quickly, we wanted > to align our interims solution with the approaches and strategies of > mpOTR to avoid coming up with opposing solution. This kind of stuff is > not really possible without any transparency or involvement in the process. > > So, bottom line: I'd like to know what's up with the process, where it > is, and be able to align our work with the way the mpOTR spec is evolving. > > Guy > > > [0] https://blog.crypto.cat/2014/01/mpotr-project-plan/ > > _______________________________________________ > OTR-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
