Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSC3839: primary-identity-as-key #3839

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

zander
Copy link

@zander zander commented Jun 26, 2022

Signed-off-by: Tom Zander <tom@flowee.org>
@uhoreg uhoreg changed the title MSMSC3839: primary-identity-as-key MSC3839: primary-identity-as-key Jun 26, 2022
@uhoreg
Copy link
Member

uhoreg commented Jun 26, 2022

Thank you for your proposal. I'm marking this as a draft since it needs more details before it can be considered. For example, what encryption algorithms are used, the format for the QR code, the shape of the API endpoints, etc.

@uhoreg uhoreg marked this pull request as draft June 26, 2022 19:37
@uhoreg uhoreg added proposal A matrix spec change proposal kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Jun 26, 2022
@izN8nu6RyeneG5XnBoBgyRMVGH6H43WF

This comment was marked as resolved.

@zander

This comment was marked as resolved.

@zander

This comment was marked as resolved.

@izN8nu6RyeneG5XnBoBgyRMVGH6H43WF

This comment was marked as resolved.

@zander

This comment was marked as resolved.

@izN8nu6RyeneG5XnBoBgyRMVGH6H43WF

This comment was marked as resolved.

@zander

This comment was marked as resolved.

@izN8nu6RyeneG5XnBoBgyRMVGH6H43WF

This comment was marked as resolved.

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
# MSC3839: primary identity as public / private key-pair
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@zander wrote

Its really off-topic to write lots of pages of text about another proposal on this PR

I don't think that's fair. I take no view as to which solution is preferable, but if there are two proposals to solve a problem, it is absolutely on-topic to describe why you see another solution as preferable.

Everyone: we aim to achieve consensus on what constitutes a good change to the spec, and we do that via discussion. People will have different opinions, and that is fine, but please be nice about it, and assume good intent rather than malice. Expressions such as "Back in the real world" and "Do a search for..." are, frankly, condescending and are more likely to aggravate than lead to quality discussion.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if there are two proposals to solve a problem, it is absolutely on-topic to describe why you see another solution as preferable.

Everyone should be able to say what is wrong with this one, which is better solved in another one. But maybe the details of how its better solved should be on "the other one". Especially when its mostly personal opinion as what we observed this week is mostly propoaganda of another solution and coming up with not very well researched reasons why this one is bad.

Thank you for hiding the messages, I hope we can see more pragmatic work here going forward.

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Dec 15, 2022

@zander @izN8nu6RyeneG5XnBoBgyRMVGH6H43WF Please use comments on the file changes view to start discussions, so that Github tracks them as separate threads and they can be marked as "Resolved" once addressed.

I've hidden the comments in the main PR for that reason.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants