daw: I'm not sure whether I understand your position.
 daw: Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the entire security community understands the term "capability" to mean one thing.
     tyler: You hold a position of respect within the security community. I think it would be useful for you to take a position on this issue.
         daw: I don't know enough about the history to have a position on the history.
             tyler: Over the course of this email discussion,
                 daw: Fantastic! I look forward to the result. Let me know if I can help by commenting on drafts or somesuch.
             tyler: As MarcS has pointed out, Butler Lampson has a god-like position within the security community.
                 daw: Maybe so, but speaking personally, when it comes to science, I prefer to avoid putting too much faith in god-figures.
                     shap: That's only because pigs in a poke are traif.
                 daw: This may be true,
                 daw: All in all, I'm not sure I would have picked up the key ideas of this community without the personal nudging,
                     shap: I agree with all of your points, and I have suggested several times to MarkM that he, I, and perhaps Jonathan Rees
                         marcs: Jonathan, who has opposed all this naming distinction stuff, used the "lambda capability" term, and it was so natural,
                 daw: - the capability community has a jargon of its own that took me a while to pick up
                     frantz: Perhaps having been active in the capability community for on the order of 30 years, I'm the last one to try to grok the problems of newcomers,
                         daw: I went through the exercise of trying to write down the worst offendors, and in retrospect it's probably not quite as bad as I made it out to be,
                     frantz: Cheers - Bill
                         marcs: Looks like this is another vote in favor of "object capability".
             tyler: As you've said, in actions and in words, you are friendly to the capability view.
                 daw: I guess I'm being careful in my wording for two separate reasons:
             tyler: All I am looking for is an evaluation on the evidence presented to date. What part of the evidence do you find lacking?
                 daw: Well, I guess I see two separate gaps in the current literature:
             tyler: I would like to address the other content in your last message; however,
                 daw: Shoot away! I didn't mean to withdraw from the entire conversation.
 daw: I see two strategies.
     tyler: I see a third strategy: running code and direct criticism.
         daw: Well, speaking as an outsider, my sense is that E has been doing a good job of building running code,
     tyler: The goal is to get capabilities deployed.
         daw: Ok, fair enough. This is a different goal from convincing the security community.
     tyler: Given that there has been 30 years of "bogosity" surrounding capabilities,
         alan_karp: I claim to be the first to follow Tyler's excellent suggestion. IEEE Software sent me the galley proofs for my split capabilities paper right in the middle of this flurry of emails on the subject. The paper describes the access matrix (which I think I transposed) and the row/column compression. I got the editor to let me insert the sentence "Despite the apparent symmetry, ACLs are not equivalent to CLs." with a reference to "Demolished". That's the best I could do so late in the process.
             tyler: Wow, the scientific process in action right before our very eyes. This is great.
         alan_karp: Tyler, you need to write your paper on the subject, so we have a solid piece of work to cite.
             tyler: Thank you for the encouragement. I will write a paper. I am not sure what to do with it, but I'll write it.
         daw: Well, I'm not sure this is a workable approach on its own. This issue requires more than a footnote to do justice to. It needs a whole paper.