Re: [Xen-devel] Security vulnerability process, and CVE-2012-0217 [vote?]

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Does anybody have any objections to Ian's changes in this patch series? 
None of these appear significant changes. In line with the decision 
making process, I would be happy to apply. But, I am also happy to run 
this through a vote.
The patch series was
[PATCH 1/6] Clarify what info predisclosure list members may share 
during an embargo
[PATCH 2/6] Clarifications to predisclosure list subscription instructions
[PATCH 3/6] Clarify the scope of the process to just the hypervisor project
[PATCH 4/6] Discuss post-embargo disclosure of potentially controversial 
private decisions
[PATCH 5/6] Patch review, expert advice and targetted fixes
[PATCH 6/6] Declare version 1.3 ... that would have changed to 1.4 as we 
added CentOS to the pre-disclosure list in 1.3
Best Regards
Lars

On 23/08/2012 11:37, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 19:16 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [...]
> > More minor policy questions
> > ---------------------------
> [...]
> > Lacunae in the process
> > ----------------------
> I've prepared a series of patches to the policy[0] which implement most
> (but not all) of what was suggested in these two sections. I think they
> are largely uncontroversial, but please do holler if you disagree or
> want to suggest further improvements..
>
> I'm not at all sure that patches are the best way to present this but there
> we are.
>
> Ian.
>
> [0] http://www.xen.org/projects/security_vulnerability_process.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel