Attached below is a new Doodle Poll to reschedule the Quality Working Group (QWG) Kick off meeting (originally planned for December 19th). I have selected two days in the coming weeks, Thursday, January 31st and Thursday, February 7th. Let me know if none of these times work for you.
QWG and Board Members,
The response for the doodle poll remains low at this point. We will get a new doodle poll sent out that includes some times next week and the following. My apologies to those of you who have taken the time to fill in the recent poll.
A new doodle poll is available to hold the QWG kickoff meeting later this week. The turnout for the poll is rather minimal, but it appears we missed a few folks in the previous email. If the poll turnout remains low, I will create another with some times next week. If anyone has a strong preference just reply direct and let me know.
Attached below is a new Doodle Poll to reschedule the Quality Working Group (QWG) Kick off meeting (originally planned for December 19th). I have selected two days next week, Thursday, January 17th and Friday, January 18th. Let me know if none of these times work for you.
There is some significant interest from the Board list for starting this WG. Additionally, the members of the SPWG had a discussion about how this group could be used going forward. A highlight of this conversation was that we use the CQWG to develop CVE use cases. We can start this process by reaching out to CVE end users and inviting them to talk about how they use CVE and what data is most important from their perspective. We have identified at least one CVE end user already, though we’d be particularly interested if Board Members know of other good candidates for these kinds of discussions.
I created a doodle poll with some options for the CQWG kick-off meeting. Let me know if none of these times work for you.
I agree. I will be happy to participate in the discussions as well.
Thank you, Gracias, Grazie, 谢谢, Merci!, Спасибо!, Bedankt, Danke!, ありがとう, धन्यवाद!
I think establishing this WG is a great idea. I'd be happy to participate.
The CVE team would like to judge your level of interest in establishing a CVE Entry Quality Working Group. The main focus of the group would be on improving the quality of CVE entry content. The output of the group would be best practices and guidelines on how to generate a CVE entry, and possibly propose changes to the CNA Rules.
Example issues the group could cover include:
· Should the CVSS vector be allowed in a CVE Entry description?
· What is the best way to describe relationships between products (e.g. Product A bundles Product B)?
· If the only public data for two different vulnerabilities would result in an identical description, what should be done?
Would the Board be interested in establishing the CVE Entry Quality Working Group, and are any Board members interested in stepping up to be the chair? Please respond by Friday Nov 30.
The CVE Team
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|