[cap-talk] [cap-conf] Workshop name issue
jed at nersc.gov
Wed Feb 20 15:49:22 EST 2008
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
> 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
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...
More information about the cap-talk