[Cfrg] Encouraging participation in CFRG

["Paterson, Kenny" <[e-mail]>]

Dear CFRG,

One of the challenges for CFRG going forward is to get more experts
involved: we have many difficult technical questions ahead of us, and the
small set of people who are currently regular contributors to CFRG do not
have all the answers.

Indeed, CFRG is a research group, and many of the questions we are faced
with do not even have answers yet, or if we have answers, the issues at
hand are certainly not yet definitively settled.

The current discussion on the security of signatures in the multi-key
setting is a good case in point: we have Dan Bernstein's previous paper
which provides one result about multi-key security, and the new paper from
Eike Kiltz et al which provides another result under a different set of
assumptions. We should be capable of comparing these papers
dispassionately using appropriate language whilst keeping our heads cool.

With this CFRG challenge in mind, I would urge everyone who contributes to
this list to keep things as non-aggressive and non-personalised as
possible. Of course, if something is technically wrong, then that should
be pointed out, in a polite and respectful way. But we want to encourage
participation from new voices, not discourage it.

CFRG is a forest where many flowers should be encouraged to bloom. At the
moment, there is a bit too much Paraquat being sloshed around.

Thank you,

Alexey and Kenny
CFRG co-chairs

PS If you think this might apply to you, then it probably does. We are
happy to take feedback and brickbats off list.