Thanks, Andrew.

"Robert J. Hansen via Gnupg-users" <[email protected]> Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:30:42 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

I have long had a weird role in @GnuPG. I don't influence the 
specifications (RFC9580 or LibrePGP), I don't touch the codebase, I have 
absolutely no official role. Some people listen to me anyway because of 
my twenty years of active involvement in the GnuPG community.

Today, Andrew wrote one of the bravest criticisms I've ever seen of 
GnuPG's leadership. I thought it was professional, but it was also so 
unflinching I thought it certainly had to be a private communique 
mistakenly sent to the mailing list.

It was not.

First, my hat is off to Andrew for writing that criticism. It is 
important and it should be read by GnuPG supporters.

You can read it ourself in the archives:

https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2026-April/068280.html

I will have more to say later. I have to be very careful what I say, 
because I do not want to give the impression I'm seeking to influence a 
specification or an implementation.[*]

For now, I will say I am on Andrew's side in this and I commend him for 
what he's done.


[*] If you're wondering why I'm always on the outside: As a former 
contractor for the US government, many people would object if I 
contributed code or spoke up on technical issues relating to the spec. 
These concerns are not unreasonable.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 236 B)