[Foundation] Text Conferencing Ammendment

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Aug 16 13:21:39 CDT 2002


Even though this thread has generally moved on, I want to reply to this
=)

Yes, you would have to sue the web of trust, but this problem could be
easily handled when a new member joins and they must be able to have
their key verified through the web of trust (3 marginals or one full if
I remember right) from someone in the JSF, if that is the case then the
key could be accepted.  I would imagine this has already happened by the
time the person is trying to join the JSF because they should have been
a part of the community to even have a chance at getting in.  Just my
theory there, but who knows in practice =)  Besides, there are people
like me that are a pain to get to trust you in the web.  I think I have
one person at full trust, since we verified keys in person.

--temas


On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:32, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> Playing devil's advocate now...
> 
> So uh... then we all have to do a web of trust, etc, etc. How do I know
> you're really temas, despite what your PGP key says, if I haven't met
> you...? (This is theoretical, of course... since we have met.) But how do
> I know you are you say you are in person? You could have a fake ID?
> 
> /me just wants people to keep focus on the issues at hand, rather than the
> whole internet identity problem at large.
> 
> We'll just have to wait for PingID to figure that part out for us. ;)
> 
> bs.
> 
> On 15 Aug 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> > My point is, without verification of the identity through something like
> > PGP keys, fingerprints, dna samples, or whatever else the component
> > accepts, the system is probably not within the bounds we're researching
> > again.  If people accept that fact, fine, but I won't trust it =)
> >
> > Memberbot can be partially trusted because it verifies the JID, which no
> > one has shown a complete way to spoof, yet (bum bum bum, insert
> > foreboding music here).  I still think it could be improved with
> > something like PGP signed presence, or the new XML encryption stuff.
> >
> > --temas
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 14:07, bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I think "useless sham" is a bit strong.  All I'm trying to do is to strike
> > > some balance between doing what needs to be done from the perspective of
> > > the by-laws and providing some accommodation for the "Jabber way" of
> > > communicating in a cooperative fashion.  Technically, no meetings can be
> > > held without being there in person or on the phone in a conference call.
> > > No votes can be carried out unless done so in-person, on the phone,
> > > in-writing, or through e-mail (and even that is a bit suspect).
> > >
> > > We're kind of going from one extreme to the other here.  Voting for Board
> > > Members via the memberbot is definitely not acceptable yet everyone seemed
> > > OK with that.  Now, simply adding the memberbot as an additional conduit
> > > in the context of the more legally correct physical meeting supplemented
> > > by conference calls does not seem acceptable.
> > >
> > > On 15 Aug 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> > >
> > > > You still have identity issues.  The groupchat server, in it's current
> > > > state, just can't verify that people are who they say they are.  While
> > > > this doesn't hurt voting, it does make the meeting something of a
> > > > useless sham.
> > > >
> > > > --temas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 13:31, bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we could something else, like MSN?
> > > > >
> > > > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, I think we could use groupchat for meetings but then carry out
> > > > > votes using memberbot.  That way we could have the discussions and
> > > > > official votes would be verifiable.  I could ammend the ammendment to so
> > > > > stipulate.  Would that be acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > My only concern right now is that groupchat is essentially anonymous. We
> > > > > > need a way to verify that someone is who they say they are. Until then I'm
> > > > > > not sure we can regarding groupchat as reliably or official.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > > > > Jabber Software Foundation
> > > > > > http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There has been some continual confusion over whether we can use Jabber to
> > > > > > > actually have some of these meetings.  I'd like to try and end that
> > > > > > > confusion for meetings of the Members:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose that the Board of Directors approve the addition of the
> > > > > > > following sentence to the end of the existing paragraph for Section 3.1
> > > > > > > Place of Meetings in the Jabber Software Foundation By-Laws.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Text conferencing is an approved form of remote communication provided
> > > > > > > all participants communicate with one another through the text
> > > > > > > conference."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note a couple of things about this statement.  First, the caveat that all
> > > > > > > participants have to communicate with one another through the conference.
> > > > > > > This seems a little redundant but it's important because you can't have
> > > > > > > some people talking on the phone and others talking in the text
> > > > > > > conference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Second, note that this does NOT necessarily apply to a meeting of the
> > > > > > > Board of Directors.  I think that those meetings must still be conducted
> > > > > > > over the phone at a minimum.  Resolving whether the Board can use text
> > > > > > > conferencing is not nearly as important right now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Members mailing list
> > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members





More information about the Members mailing list