Discussion style differences between OpenPGP design groups

[Bernhard Reiter]

Hi Andrew,

thanks for the writeup, especially the nuanced parts were helpful!

Am Mittwoch 29 April 2026 10:57:07 schrieb Andrew Gallagher via Gnupg-users:
> I would classify this thread also as a "family argument". And the root
> cause of this argument is whether or not Werner has a *personal veto*
> over the specification.

In my view it were at least as much the (some) participants of the working 
group  _and_ Werner who have made this into a power struggle. What I am not 
accepting is the full blame on a single individual or side.

Werner is not alone, and never was, which I know from personal and 
unfortunately private communication. This statement is hard to prove
on my own, but consider for a minute what someone would do who tends to thing 
that LibrePGP is partly the better specification: It would take quite a bit 
of courage to expose one selfes and lot of time to argue against an 
established group.

And the tone has become less constructive over time in my memory. Much so.

> When it became clear that nobody else was willing to grant him the power of
> veto, he walked out and attempted to set up an alternative "standard"
> with him as the sole decision-maker.

I read this differently: It can be a constructive step.
Werner has been putting more time into an implementation and in a 
specification which is closer to what is actual practice over time.
This enables others to see how an updated specification with the experience of 
RFC4480 designers would look like.
It directs efforts away from an unconstructive debate towards setting up a 
specification and working code.

By the way: It is a good approach in family disputes to let things cool down 
and then try to find out what someone really wants. Or to separate and try to 
find out what a part of the family wants. 

> When Werner's negotiating position is "I will make peace but only if you
> allow me to veto anything I dislike" there is no prospect of compromise.

Did anyone really ask him what a constructive way forward would be?
And what about the best alternatives?

In my experience negociating means to find out what others and myself really 
want and to establish a respectful communication in order to do so.
The respectful part was often missing for the specification debate, I am 
merely pointing out where that is the case.

> And when you ask me "why doesn't the WG just turn into Werner's way here
> and saves the ecosystem?" you are asking me "why don't you just accept
> Werner as your dictator for the sake of peace?". That's a deeply unfair
> thing to ask of any collaborative community.

I've asked that question to show that either 
 a part of the community more cares about its own power and the principle then 
the end of the ecosystem
 Or that it is not the end of the ecosystem.

Note that we were talking about a single technical issue that you've said did 
not matter. Of course a community could easily do it Werner's way if the 
point does not really matter and thus "save the ecosystem".

> I don't believe you intend your question that way, but that is the way
> it comes across to most people I know. 

That maybe part of a missunderstanding then. 
How do you think I intend my question?
What should I have written to get my intention across to others?

> By arguing endlessly about the tone and incivility of the complaints, or by
> drawing equivalence between the complaints and the initial unfairness,
> we let the root cause - the unfair behaviour itself - off the hook.

If you accuse me of "endlessly" arguing, I might just stop. 
What would you have won?

> Constantly bothsidesing a single-issue argument only serves to prolong
> the argument. 

I am not giveing both sides the same part of the blame. 
I'll try to explain why your style in your last email is one that I personally 
find aggressive and unfair. And such a style will not get me, or others that 
perceive it in similar way, to spend more time listening to you.
And listen is a fundamental precondition to get common understandings.
Thus the style of your email seemed to contradict that you have wanted to work 
together.

You have a passion for end-to-end cryptography and I respect it and I am 
grateful for your work. Probably you have more time for it than I have, but 
is getting me to react less to you really helping?

> At some point a decision has to be made. 
> Do we grant Werner a veto, or not?

Werner Koch has devoted the major fraction of his professional life
towards creating a Free Software product for end-to-end cryptography.
He is the active technical and architectual lead of the major and 
most widely used OpenPGP implementation (seen over 25 years).
As you have written before, he was right on a number of decision he took
in those roles. He as a lot of experience.

Yes, I think it is worth a real consideration to give him a veto.

It would make talks become much more careful and respectful.
There are some good examples (in society) where groups require a full 
consensus and work successfully under that condition.

Best Regards,
Bernhard

-- 
https://intevation.de/~bernhard   +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20260430/ab9d3290/attachment.sig>