Bug #10202

Have a mailing list for the revocation certificate mechanism

Added by sajolida 2015-09-16 04:40:42 . Updated 2016-11-09 13:01:22 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Infrastructure
Target version:
Start date:
2015-09-16
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Communicate
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

We almost decided the email provider (Feature #10189), next step is to actually get the list created.

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocks Tails - Feature #11750: Track the distribution of the shares of the revocation certificate Resolved 2016-08-30

History

#1 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-16 04:40:51

  • Parent task set to #7700

#2 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-16 07:05:40

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Email sent to the top candidate.

#3 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-21 03:15:08

  • Target version set to Tails_1.7

#4 Updated by sajolida 2015-09-30 08:38:43

  • Target version deleted (Tails_1.7)

Taking it easy.

#5 Updated by sajolida 2016-08-30 03:28:23

  • blocks Feature #11750: Track the distribution of the shares of the revocation certificate added

#6 Updated by sajolida 2016-10-13 14:53:31

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)

We have it! tails@riseup.net is the owner.

#7 Updated by sajolida 2016-10-14 01:13:39

And now configured to be private and with an hidden list of receipients.

#8 Updated by sajolida 2016-10-16 16:25:17

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Actually, it would be good if someone else reviewed the configuration of the list.

#9 Updated by sajolida 2016-11-08 16:40:42

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

I thought this would be assigned to somebody as part of “Volunteers to handle important tickets flagged for next release, but without assignee” of the November meeting but it was not. So I had a second look and let’s skip the review.

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2016-11-08 19:11:02

> I thought this would be assigned to somebody as part of “Volunteers to handle important tickets flagged for next release, but without assignee” of the November meeting but it was not.

Two things explain why this did not happen:

  • we were only 2 people attending that meeting;
  • the link from the text you’re quoting points to https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=226, which was still pointing to a query about 2.6 (which we missed, sorry!) that produced an empty set of results. I don’t know who created this set of queries, who is supposed to update the link to point to the next release, and when they are supposed to do it (and ETOOLAZY to check now). I personally didn’t even notice that we had these per-release queries until 5 minutes ago (if I created them myself, well, I forgot :), so I’m not surprised that it didn’t work as you thought it would.

> So I had a second look and let’s skip the review.

Fair enough. I wonder if you might be putting too much faith into the monthly meeting to handle such things, though, given the above. But whatever, it does work for me this way :)

#11 Updated by sajolida 2016-11-09 13:01:22

Thanks for the additional info. I fixed the broken link in the meeting
agenda: we should instead check the view of the next release and spot
stuff from there by hand.

Here I tried to balance the faith I put in the the monthly meeting
(relatively low indeed) with the importance and urge I was putting in
this task and thought I wouldn’t bother waiting more or begging to
people from tails@boum.org for a review.

I’m glad you’re still lurking on Redmine and explicitely agreed with this :)