The microblog: 2021.09.09 20:46:51

2021.09.09 20:46:51 (1436038406258118672) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1436007677121998853):

Did you read the paragraph you're quoting? CAESAR made all this clear at the beginning: we want public analyses, and for the necessary judgment calls we have a committee of top experts. Eliminating the "committee will not comment" rule would have meant not having the top experts.


2021.09.09 18:08:46 (1435998624513597469) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435992787103715328):

"CAESAR selection decisions will be made on the basis of _published_ analyses. If submitters disagree with published analyses then they are expected to promptly and _publicly_ respond to those analyses." First posted "Timeline (tentative)" was _5 years_ to give time for analysis.

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.