"Yes, I know that security people always think they know best, and they all disagree with each other, which is why we already have tons of security modules. Ask ten people what model is the right one, and you get fifteen different answers."
"I'm not in the least interested in becoming some kind of arbiter or voice of sanity in this."
How do you even get to a consensus model to tease these things out; when your answer is a refusal to engage with "pointless" things?
It just seems contentious to me, that anyone when considering this kind of rhetoric, would make claims in regards to the level of security that Linux (may) provide. It just feels something akin to playing in the realm of security theater.
You make valid points. I don't know that the word apathy is strong enough in this context, shrug. I mean, why not just say the thing? "This needs to be fleshed out". At least it provides direction and context, (go push sand somewhere else; the TAB) and would probably be quicker/easier to write then sling this tired narrative, and non-answer to what is actually being asked;
(The TSEM LSM people aren't trying to push a specific thing, they are asking for clarity of the process and particulars by witch a thing should be submitted; because from what I understand, their project (and others) keep hitting walls on the grounds of 'formatting' and 'structure'; as a stop-gap, and thus an incomplete review, of the ideas and contents of the problem/solution set of the project. (Think: "It's too difficult for me to read the thing, so I won't until you fix it" -- And not name with specifics to what is considered 'fixed', or what the process for re-submission is; It's a backhand way of claiming "secret knowledge" over the thing and then saying "just fix it". Fix what specifically ? )
That is to say; when outsiders see these kinds of roadblocks, and the responses/narratives of key figures in these spaces is "apathy" of this degree, it feels something to me akin to security theater.