Hybrid keysigning party, your opinion?

[Peter Lebbing]

On 08/12/16 14:51, Lachlan Gunn wrote:
> Personally I am of the mind that anything longer than that email is
> wishful thinking, you have to get people to actually follow it.

The e-mail wasn't meant to be the text for participants. I've spent all
afternoon writing a text at the 33C3 wiki[1], but only part of it is
meant to be read by everyone, or essentially, everyone who wants to know
more than the most basic. It's 1764 words. I've tried to restrict it to
the important things, and I feel that cutting it further down would lose
important information. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to read
the whole section, though.

My e-mail was 1424 words though, so I am afraid I ended up in your
wishful thinking area.

The remaining 1607 words are in the sections "Background" and "Option
for advanced users", and those words happen to include the name Lachlan.
Go check it out! ;-P

> To this end, another suggestion is to make the forms that they fill in
> identical, whether or not they are late.  You could do this by putting
> the fingerprints at the end of the primary document and just printing
> out the first bit for latecomers.  This might save some "I don't know
> how your form works, I have the prearranged one" on the day.

I really like this suggestion! I had to think about it for a while
before I could see a way to make it work. The trouble is that I want
caff to be able to process the file, and for that I need to keep it
having much of the same patterns. I ended up not significantly altering
the two files compared to what I proposed, but instead suggesting
everybody should use the scrubbed version. That way, the instructions
are the same for all participants.

Thank you,

Peter.

[1] https://events.ccc.de/congress/2016/wiki/Session:Keysigning_party

-- 
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter>