Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

[daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)]

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.