Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure

crispinat_private

jmjonesat_private wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > True enough; other open source projects don't usually have too much
> > trouble with the particulars though. Like you said, the sort-of lives we
> > may or may not have tend to interfere.
>
> I have, on reliable authority, that this project is somewhat unique in its
> approach.  I applaud this, and see that a unique problem like we're

The "reliable authority" would be me.  It was an off-list discussion with
JMJ, explaining why LSM is more contenteous than your average open source
project.  The reasons are as follows:

   * LSM strives to get consensus from competing segments of the security
     community, which has a habit of bickering.
   * LSM seeks to gain acceptance in the mainline Linux kernel, which tends
     to bicker, and tends to blow off the higher-order concerns of the
     security community.
   * MOST ESPECIALLY: because LSM needs to be accepted into the One True
     Linux Kernel(tm), it is vitally important to get consensus.  While
     LSM is open source, and dissatisfied individuals are free to take a
     snapshot of the code and go fork off (so to speak :-) that would be
     disasterous for LSM. If Linus is presented with two competing
     LSM implementations, he's likely to tell them BOTH to go to hell.

> attempting to address requires unique solutions, as well as unique
> methods.  A venture into "social engineering" like this one deserves some
> consideration of the how to to get to conclusion, how to define what a
> "consensus" really is, and how to provide a basis for discussions in the

Actually, I specifically disagree with that. If we get all formal about the
rules & procedures, then people will start trying to game the system.  Kind
of like Congress :-)

This is an open, inclusive project, but it is not a democracy.  It is an
elitist meritocracy, operated at the core by some fairly friendly dictators.
I'm one of those dictators, but not the only one.  I get to be a dictator
because I'm paying for somewhat less than half of the work that goes on
here*.  If I'm imprudent with my dictatorial powers, then I'll end up paying
for all the work that goes on here, but not in a way that I like :-)

That same controlling factor applies to the other movers & shakers here.  We
all strive to get along, because we need each other for this to fly.

* No, I don't want to debate the fractions of work :-)

> light of the project goals.  Many open source projects just "eject" people
> who don't agree with the views of a few central individuals. I'm not sure
> how to get there, but Crispin's comments at the top of this thread suggest
> there may be room for definition, at this point.

Pretty much the same, except that there are some people we can't afford to
eject.

> HE suggested a one-day review period.  You seem to agree with me that it

"HE"?! :-) Do I REALLY come off as that high & mighty? I'm sorry if that's
the case, because its not the intent.

Crispin

--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module