Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 05.09.19 10:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 08:49, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >      > On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >      >
> >      > Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
> >      > IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
> >      > request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
> >      > here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
> >      > such a stalled thread.)
> >      
> >      If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel.   Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
> >      
> > I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
> > Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add 
> > them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
> >
> > Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions 
> > are.  In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there 
> > something else.
> Requiring something to be blocked on xen-devel before we discuss it on
> the call is monumentally short sighted, and off-putting for contributors.
>
> In this case, it is very definitely not the first time this problem has
> been raised, as it is an XSA shaped elephant in the room.  Its no secret
> that id wraps cause problems, and while our security policy doesn't
> comment on the matter, it also doesn't say "warning - stuff *will* break
> in weird, wonderful, and security-relevant ways when domid's wrap".
>
> The order of the agenda is important, and I don't think this should be
> at the top, but even if we only end up with 2 minutes to discuss it,
> then so be it.  (2 minutes of talking can still be far more valuable
> than a weeks worth of emailing.)
>
> What is not acceptable is suggesting that it should be veto'd simply
> because it is perceived to be a very fresh idea/query.
I still think it would help if a short high level design would be posted
on xen-devel first.

At least for me it is much easier to discuss a new idea when I had some
time to think about it. And by having to write it down the one proposing
the idea will have to sort his thoughts and will stumble over potential
problems, instead of everyone on the call having to imagine what he was
thinking and finding the same problems, which might be solved already.

And by having seen a proposal early I can decide to drop off the call in
case I'm not interested. But I might not know whether some areas I'm
interested in might be touched by a new idea before having seen the high
level description.

This is no veto, but just a suggestion how to use the time of all call
attendees more effectively.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel