The microblog: 2021.09.09 20:31:40

2021.09.09 20:31:40 (1436034587478552578) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1436008887057063941):

Every cryptographic competition has had public analyses from people who happened to be on the selection committee, and presumably this will continue, so you're suggesting distinctions that have nothing to do with the actual differences between procedures in various competitions.


2021.09.09 18:23:36 (1436002356588474374) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

There were hundreds of public messages discussing procedures: e.g., various submitters asking for more time, and followup discussions. I sent more than 500 admin messages overall. But the real content of the competition was the _public analysis of submissions_. That takes time.

2021.09.09 18:28:43 (1436003647985422346) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)":

I read most of the public content back then & I am not saying it was a bad competition. Since you analyze different competitions in the paper I'm wondering if it's better to have public committee discussions & on each round/candidate instead of a "trust us"-group deciding rounds.

2021.09.09 18:44:44 (1436007677121998853) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)", replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1436003647985422346):

"Forcing the committee to publish analyses would have discouraged participation, taking resources away from the core job of making judgment calls beyond published analyses." to the best of my knowledge nothing about these judgement calls is public.

2021.09.09 18:49:33 (1436008887057063941) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)", replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1436007677121998853):

I wonder further if public analysis by the committee members would really have discouraged participation. after all most participants are in academia and publish, get feedback and discussion on their work. but analysis might cost the committee more time than they want to spend.