From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Kurth Subject: Re: Security policy ambiguities - XSA-108 process post-mortem Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:01:04 +0000 Message-ID: <0E6C0A5F-0FE6-42A6-BD57-60ADB3D21B82@gmail.com> References: <21557.24142.873029.148164@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <21557.50031.783473.873273@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <1413894766.23337.34.camel@citrix.com> <21586.10214.683512.296628@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20141031224036.GA16669@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.com> <1415186272.15317.5.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XmPUl-0000Nq-GY for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:01:11 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x12so1574939wgg.3 for ; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:01:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1415186272.15317.5.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Matt Wilson , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 5 Nov 2014, at 11:17, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 15:40 -0700, Matt Wilson wrote: >> I think that we should reduce any burden on the security team by >> making this a community decision that is discussed in public, rather >> than something that is handled exclusively in a closed manner as it is >> today. This way others who are active community participants can help >> with the decision making process can do the investigation and weigh in >> on the risk/benefit tradeoff to the security process and the >> project. See Message-ID: <20141021143053.GA22864@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.com> >> or [1] if you are willing to visit a URL. ;-) >> >> There's been a bit of talk about "delay" and so on. I'd rather not set >> expectations on how long the processing a petition to be added to the >> predisclosure list should take. Building community consensus takes >> time, just as it does for > > I think regardless of who is processing the applications what is more > important is to have a concrete set of *objective* criteria. Anyone who > demonstrates that they meet those criteria must be allowed to join. I don't think that having applications discussed and processed on a dedicated public list and objective criteria are mutually exclusive. The two may provide a good balance, and allow for some flexibility in ambiguous cases. In particular if we either have a strong owner or follow the "two +1 with no -1" model of a set of decision makers who earned that status over time. More or less what we use for access to Coverity Scan output. Regards Lars