[cap-talk] [cap-conf] Workshop name issue

[Jed Donnelley]

On 2/20/2008 10:28 AM, Peter G. Neumann wrote:
> OK.  It's time for me to get on my "trustworthiness" (or "dependability")
> hobby-horse.  TRUSTWORTHINESS is what we are really seeking, which happens
> to encompass security, reliability, safety, survivability, predictable
> composition, predictable performance, and lots more.  PROTECTION is much too
> narrow.  HISTORY is not enough.  Where we should be going in the future is
> more important.  WORKSHOP is good.  A SYSTEM view is important, because
> trustworthiness must encompass emergent properties.  So, the simplest is
> something like
> 
> * Workshop on Capability-Based Systems 
> 
> or if you wish to include TRUSTWORTHY and a FUTURE perspective
> 
>   Workshop on Trustworthy Capability-Based Systems
> or
>   Workshop on the Future of Capability-Based Trustworthy Systems
> 
> The hell with trying to make it pronounceable.  Remember what
> Tom Lehrer did for the Boston MTA:   HCKC PW.
> 
> PGN  (pagan?  piggin'? paganini?)

Thanks for adding your thoughts Peter!

Sorry I didn't notice your message before sending our my
last one on this topic.  I've added your suggestions above
to:

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

I see you also follow the "Workshop on ..." scheme,
so with you and Hank Levy and no objections, that's
good enough for me.

I think I still prefer:

Workshop on Capability-Based Protection

Not quite your "trustworthy" word perhaps, but simpler
and I think it gets the point across (including security
and robustness).  I don't think including "future" in
the name would be wise at this point because a big
focus of this workshop is mining capability history
for technology relevant to current and future systems.

Does the above work for you?  Going twice...

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