On Fri, 2026-02-06 at 09:37 +0000, Daniel Turull wrote: > I apologize if the proposal looked as we bypassed or ignore bodies > like TSC. That was not the intention neither make Richard unhappy.
You didn't, that was specifically about concerns related to how the security-discussions list came about and it's purpose which at this point is for the OE board to decide. > As I said in the proposal, the idea is to be totally optional. I > didn't want to change any policy but just have an additional way to > collaborate in this area. > > Even if some people/companies don’t want to share if they start they > can still benefit from it and decide what to work on if someone else > already signal they have started to looked at it. > > And from the comments, probably it is better to keep it out from the > yocto documentation. > > Sending the proposal in the mailing list, was an attempt to drive it > and bring the idea to a broader audience. I'm very much in favour of sharing and discussing the ideas and the architecture list does make sense for that so no problem there. I worry I probably come across too negatively. I think Peter's reply shows how tricky some of this can be inside companies and I guess I was trying to reflect that, and the potential impact of up coming legislation. I don't want to hurt our existing contributions and I'm not sure some of the people in question are even able to share publicly as Peter did (which I also appreciate a lot). We have a balancing act between embracing change and new ideas, but also not to undervalue what we already have, which could be so much worse. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2248): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2248 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117655357/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
