Hey Vincent,
Am Donnerstag 15 Dezember 2022 12:18:16 schrieb Vincent Breitmoser via
Gnupg-devel:
> As far as I'm concerned, that issue is in the past,
so you decide to keep the information tha missrepresents GnuPG's efforts to
resolve this on the current page?
My suggestion (quoted below) was to phrase the status more respectfully.
> and either way unrelated to the question at hand here.
As explained before: It is an example showing why the way you are phrasing the
first question is likely to be understood as a framing to put the burden on
GnuPG devs and to make them look bad on this. You have also not answered
why you haven't asked the question ths other way around to the WG or what your
stance on the technical differences is.
Anyway, I've splitted this out and open a email subject with this as a new
question. If this is a question of the past to you, why not correct the
missrepresenting FAQ entry?
Regards,
Berhard
Am Donnerstag 15 Dezember 2022 11:07:54 schrieb Bernhard Reiter:
> As you can see in
> https://dev.gnupg.org/T4393
> it has not been followed up a lot by koo people.
> And the last anwer in
> https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq
> does not represent the situation fairly.
>
> It introduces the term "bug" and leaves the impression that GnuPG team
> is on the wrong here. A nicer way to phrase it would be "Why is that so?"
> or "What can be the reason?".
>
> It would be cool if the reasons given (e.g. in T4293) were explained
> in the FAQ so to show the disagreement in more detail.
>
> The patch in T4393 was not a five lines patch and the suggested way
> forward was not followed up (as far as I know). As you have written,
> it looked like the change could have been made. Addressing some
> of the concerns of the GnuPG team or at least repesenting the concerns
> in a respectful way can help (I believe).
--
https://intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter
Am Donnerstag 15 Dezember 2022 12:18:16 schrieb Vincent Breitmoser via
Gnupg-devel:
> As far as I'm concerned, that issue is in the past,
so you decide to keep the information tha missrepresents GnuPG's efforts to
resolve this on the current page?
My suggestion (quoted below) was to phrase the status more respectfully.
> and either way unrelated to the question at hand here.
As explained before: It is an example showing why the way you are phrasing the
first question is likely to be understood as a framing to put the burden on
GnuPG devs and to make them look bad on this. You have also not answered
why you haven't asked the question ths other way around to the WG or what your
stance on the technical differences is.
Anyway, I've splitted this out and open a email subject with this as a new
question. If this is a question of the past to you, why not correct the
missrepresenting FAQ entry?
Regards,
Berhard
Am Donnerstag 15 Dezember 2022 11:07:54 schrieb Bernhard Reiter:
> As you can see in
> https://dev.gnupg.org/T4393
> it has not been followed up a lot by koo people.
> And the last anwer in
> https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq
> does not represent the situation fairly.
>
> It introduces the term "bug" and leaves the impression that GnuPG team
> is on the wrong here. A nicer way to phrase it would be "Why is that so?"
> or "What can be the reason?".
>
> It would be cool if the reasons given (e.g. in T4293) were explained
> in the FAQ so to show the disagreement in more detail.
>
> The patch in T4393 was not a five lines patch and the suggested way
> forward was not followed up (as far as I know). As you have written,
> it looked like the change could have been made. Addressing some
> of the concerns of the GnuPG team or at least repesenting the concerns
> in a respectful way can help (I believe).
--
https://intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter
Attached Files:
-
signature.asc (0.64 KB)