prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established

I feel like this is what the Technical Advisory Board should be replying with.

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;

Thus seeking documented guidance on new Linux Security Module submissions for how they should be optimally introduced.

(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.