From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Kurth Subject: Re: Security policy ambiguities - XSA-108 process post-mortem Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:16:57 +0200 Message-ID: <4D7AD178-9E02-4C71-ADCC-6BF2E3DE3E80@gmail.com> References: <21557.24142.873029.148164@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <21557.50031.783473.873273@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <54380D8F020000780003DD5E@mail.emea.novell.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.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XdeYg-00050V-1r for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:17:02 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hi2so7217756wib.9 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:17:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54380D8F020000780003DD5E@mail.emea.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10 Oct 2014, at 16:47, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Predisclosure list memembership > > This whole final section I completely agree with. > > There's one more thing I thought of btw: When we change the > policy following whatever community input we gathered (not just > now, but also in the future), people currently on the pre-disclosure > list may (at least theoretically) end up no longer qualifying for > being on the list. Shouldn't we > - add some kind of statement to the effect of implicit agreement > to changed terms, > - provide means for list members to be removed other than by > them asking for it? > > Jan I also was wondering whether it would make sense to put a time-limit on applications. For example, we could say that processing an application will take 2 weeks. By doing so, we avoid having to handle applications as a response to media speculation. If we get an application wrong, and allow somebody wrong on the list who then discloses information related to an embargo, we would create risks for others already on the list. This would be the worst possible outcome for the project. Just a thought Regards Lars