Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:51:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:51:10 -0500 Received: from abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.37.170]:4105 "EHLO mx2.cypherpunks.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:51:08 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.linux-kernel Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59 Date: 10 Feb 2003 21:36:45 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Distribution: isaac Message-ID: References: <3E471F21.4010803@wirex.com> <004701c2d146$24c26230$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: mozart.cs.berkeley.edu X-Trace: abraham.cs.berkeley.edu 1044913005 21805 128.32.153.211 (10 Feb 2003 21:36:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Feb 2003 21:36:45 GMT X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000) Originator: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 26 LA Walsh wrote: >> > Some security people were banned from the kernel >> >devel. summit because their thoughts were deemed >> 'dangerous': fear was they >> >were too persuasive about ideas that were deemed 'ignorant' and would >> >fool those poor kernel lambs at the summit. > >> Internal SGI politics. > > Nope... external -- the conference organizer was the one selecting and >specifically disallowing certain attendees. It >appeared important to weed out anyone who didn't think like him. I'm not sure that's relevant. We discussed these issues at length on the LSM mailing list months ago. You had the opportunity (and took it) to make the case for your proposal on the LSM mailing list, but in the end, it was deemed not persuasive by most list members. The LSM mailing list came to rough consensus on the right technical decision. I know you didn't like the outcome of that decision, but there were good technical reasons for the decisions we made. To say that you didn't have a chance to present your ideas is a misrepresentation of the truth. Part of distributed decision-making is conceding gracefully when the consensus doesn't go your way. We've all had to do this from time to time. In short, we've had this discussion already, and nothing has changed since then. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/