Security Working Group meeting - Wednesday August 31 - results

[Patrick Williams]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 01:59:56PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
> On 9/1/22 6:27 AM, Patrick Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:09:10PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >> 2  Proposal for dynamic changes to Redfish authorization rules
> >> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/docs/+/56401
> >> <https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/docs/+/56401>
> >>
> >> No discussion.
> > Does "no discussion" mean?
> >     - This topic was not covered.
> >     - Nobody present seemed to have an opinion.
> >     - Everyone present was onboard with it as-is.
> >
> > I'm trying to gauge where consensus is at.
> 
> I use "no discussion" when the topic was introduces and described, but 
> nobody expressed any interest or asked any questions.  I think someone 
> asked for the review link, which was already in the agenda. <-- Is there 
> a better way I could say this in the meeting minutes?
> When an agenda item is skipped or omitted from the meeting, I'll put 
> something like "the following topics were not covered" with the reason why.

Thank you for the clarification.

I assumed it was either 2 or 3 from my list above.  Sounds like you are
using "no discussion" to mean 2.

-- 
Patrick Williams
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20220906/8c575fe7/attachment.sig>