Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried

["Landfield, Kent B" <kent.b.landfield@intel.com>]

I have no problem with the candidate (and will vote for him myself) but
agree we should follow the process.

On 10/14/15, 5:03 AM, "Christey, Steven M." <coley@mitre.org> 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