Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried

[Pascal Meunier <pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu>]

Thank you Steve.  I completely agree with your message and I support the 
documented procedure, which should be followed.  Passion is great, but 
statements of the kind "either you agree with me or you are <insert 
insult> and should resign" (paraphrasing) defeat the purpose of having a 
board agree on things because they introduce a doubt that the decision 
was influenced through bullying instead of standing on its own merits. 
A nomination and any decision obtained through, or even just in the 
presence of, Brian Martin's insolence and attempts to intimidate the 
rest of the board, and especially one that bypasses the board's own 
procedures, could taint the integrity or the external perception of 
integrity of the results, and therefore decrease respect for, and usage 
of, the CVE.  It is counter-productive;  I believe that a nominee with 
integrity should refuse the nomination on those grounds, so Brian's 
actions are self-defeating.  I interpret the lack of (public) response 
as a repudiation of Brian's methods, and an unwillingness to respond to 
trolling;  it should not be interpreted as apathy.

Pascal


On 10/14/2015 06:03 AM, Christey, Steven M. wrote:
> The following is my personal opinion only and should not be viewed as any official CVE position.
>
> Brian's nomination and push for a vote is very inconsistent with publicly documented procedures that have been followed since the early days of CVE:
>
>    http://cve.mitre.org/community/board/addmember.html
>
> If Board members believe that this publicly-documented, long-established process should be changed, then I suggest that the *entire Board* should decide on a new process - not just Brian.
>
> In this instance, Step 1 - prospect identification - has already occurred with a Board member nominating a new member; but traditionally, the nomination has been done privately for reasons that will be explained later in this post.
>
> Step 2 includes obtaining a professional bio for the nominee, so that it can be presented to the Board in step 3.  Typically, this has required tailoring the prospect's bio to emphasize their CVE-relevant skills and experience.
>
> Step 3, Editorial Board Feedback, is done through a *private* list, not publicly.  If I recall correctly, there were at least two rationales for having private review: it allowed Board members to speak their minds freely, and it would avoid publicly embarrassing the nominee if the nominee was not approved.
>
> Step 3 also provides for a review period of at least two weeks.
>
> Finally, the current process does not require any formal vote.  As documented in Step 4, membership approval, MITRE gets "Editorial Board feedback to help guide whether the prospect should be approved for membership."  Typically, this has meant that the prospect receives support from many members, without any "no" votes.
>
> Again - if the Board wishes to change this process, then they can choose to do so; but in my opinion, a change should not be single-handedly forced by an individual member.
>
> - Steve
>
> P.S. A reminder that this is just my personal opinion.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org [mailto:owner-cve-
>> editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org] On Behalf Of Mark J Cox
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:27 AM
>> To: jericho <jericho@attrition.org>
>> Cc: cve-editorial-board-list <cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org>
>> Subject: Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried
>>
>>> So about 5 days later, a single person has voted.
>>
>> I don't believe it's appropriate to vote a +1 for someone from your
>> organisation (and in this case Kurt is also in my team) so in the
>> interests of trying to help kickstart a vote: +0
>>
>> Mark
>