[OLPC Security] Periodic identity updates

[Karl O. Pinc]

On 02/21/2007 09:26:41 PM, Ivan Krstić wrote:
> 
> Please re-read Simson's message. I've gone out of my way to invite
> feedback; anyone can contribute to the discussion, but attempting to
> push agendas -- in this case, threat models -- that lie beyond the
> scope
> of the project ("how do you protect laptops the government that bought
> them?") is not helpful and only wastes everyone's time.

I don't understand how it could be said I was pushing an
agenda.  I described an idea, and got no feedback whatsoever.
I tried to be clear from the beginning
that I would defer to the project's managers regarding
the appropriateness of the idea.  Absent any feedback
I developed the idea and explained it further.
When a response from someone officially associated
with the project eventually intimated, without ever exactly stating,
that OLPC was not interested in my idea I immediately
agreed to cease discussion of the matter.

I fail to see how these actions can be characterized as
pushing anything.

I am new to this list and have not benefited
from past discussion.  It seemed reasonable that threat
models are on-topic to Bitfrost and XO security in general.
How am I to know which threat models lie within the project's
scope and which don't?  (I will be disappointed if
the answer is "those in the Bitfrost
spec" because the call for discussion of Bitfrost mentioned no
such limits on suggestions for changes.)

I also object to having my communications construed
as supporting some agenda or another.  I don't believe
that my proposal can be accurately characterized as "how
do you protect laptops [from] the government
that bought them", although elements within governments
might be one agent that my proposed policy would
protect against.  Seeing as how we're not discussing
my suggestion any longer I'll leave the topic at that.

Finally, if anybody's wasting people's time, it's not me.
I ceased discussion upon receiving guidance (well, guidance
in the form of hostility and an intimated accusation) from
an OLPC project member.  If OLPC wishes to have a more
productive discussion on this list I propose that someone from
the project step in earlier and provide appropriate
guidance regarding what is on-topic and what suggestions
will not be considered.  I also believe that a
less confrontational, and more clear, approach to providing such
guidance would help increase the signal to noise ratio.

I regret that this note is off-topic to Bitfrost,
but believe that it is on-topic to the meta
question of how discussion on this list is to
be conducted.  Being the forum where my conduct
is questioned it is also the appropriate place
for me to respond to what I believe are
mis-characterizations of my behavior.

With this note I'll drop all matters regarding this
thread and my behavior and let the record speak
for itself.

I do think that it could be worthwhile for the list
to discuss how to better avoid unproductive topics
but at the moment I'm not particularly interested
in participating any further in that discussion.

Regards,

Karl <kop at meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein