linux-kernel - Re: 2012 Kernel Summit: Call for Participation: 2nd CALL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120621132848.34686272@notabene.brown>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:28:48 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2012 Kernel Summit: Call for Participation: 2nd CALL

A second call -- after only 4 days.
How many calls will there be?  How long do we have to respond?
If those of us who happen to be on vacation now (getting out of the way well
before the kernel summit), want to delay thinking about a proposal until
we're back at work, is that OK, or might we miss out?

> 
> This year, in order to make the selection process more transparent,

... and I really am having trouble figuring out how this makes it more 
"transparent".
It certainly makes it more noisy.  And maybe that is a good thing.  There
does seem to be more content on the list this time and that is at least
partly good.  But is it more transparent?

For transparency we would need to see how the selection process will work -
when the closing date is, how the proposals will be assessed etc.
Will the committee's deliberations be public?  Will there be an appeal
process?

If not, then the process isn't really transparent.

But this doesn't bother me as I think transparency is over-rated.
I'd much rather have competent leadership than transparent leadership, and
assuming the committee is the same as previous years (was the committee
membership announced?  I didn't see it) then I have no doubts about their
competence.

So keep up the good work, but if transparency is really what you want then I
think you need a little more than just asking people to justify their places.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)