[cap-talk] [cap-conf] Workshop name issue (was: Re: Object Capability Computing Workshop - name work)

[Jed Donnelley]

At 09:01 PM 2/19/2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 04:39 +0000, Karp, Alan H wrote:
> > Jed wrote:
> > >
> > > I can accept "Capability Computing Workshop".
> >
> > Given the many uses of the word "capability", how about 
> "Capability Security Workshop"?
>
>This severely limits the perceived utility of capabilities. IMO, the
>market for capability systems is primarily driven by robustness, not
>security.
>
>Let's not scope things narrowly where we do not need to.

I agree.  If we could somehow tersely say something like:

"Vulnerability Reduction with Capabilities Workshop" or perhaps:

"Capability Computing for Vulnerability Reduction Workshop" or:

"Capabilities for Vulnerability Reduction Workshop"

I think it would capture the essence (trying to pick up both
robustness and security with 'vulnerability reduction'), but
these are mouthfuls that sound more awkward than they seem worth
to me.

Hmmm.  Security doesn't imply robustness, but does "robustness"
or perhaps "integrity" imply security?  That is, what about:

"Capability Robustness Workshop"?

"Capability Integrity Workshop"?

Both unfortunately seem to focus on the Robustness or Integrity
of the capabilities and not on the systems as is the intent.

"Capabilities for Robust Computing"?
"Capabilities for Low Vulnerability Computing"?

I'm just throwing out names to see if any appeal to others.
I don't have any in the above that I prefer to "Capability
Computing Workshop" - though I note how that name can
be contrasted with a "Capacity Computing Workshop".

We've fumbled around enough with this naming business that
I wonder if a voting mechanism might help.  We could collect
names for a while longer which I could post, e.g.:

http://www.webstart.com/projects/cap-conf/cap-conf-name.txt

We could bounce those around some - adding (suggestions) and
removing (strong objections) as people feel, and then ultimately
have some sort of a vote?

Regarding:

At 06:09 PM 2/19/2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 17:12 -0800, Peter G. Neumann wrote:
> > Anita Jones perhaps...
>
>Has anybody thought to contact Bill and Anita? Should I?

My plan for this process is to let Bill Tulloh finish his initial
listing of capability systems and papers and people, then collect
a list of people to contact, and then divide up the responsibilities
for trying to contact those on the list.  By that time I hope we
have some additional aspects of things worked out like the workshop
name, perhaps a Web site for dates, agenda, etc. so we can put together
a "standard" notification message.  I don't mind sending a standard
message to people who we've already communicated to but who aren't
on the list (e.g. Earl Van Horn).

That said, there's little harm in contacting people early as I did
with some of you to get an initial feeling for whether there was
sufficient interest in the workshop to proceed.  Feel free to let
Bill and Anita know about the cap-conf list if you think they might
be interested in early involvement to help shape the workshop.
The same goes for anybody else who anyone thinks might like to
be involved at an early stage - please!

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed-signature.html