Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried

Andy Balinsky (balinsky)
+1 on Pascal’s message.
Insults and derision are not motivating factors and do not constitute supporting arguments. I would personally be embarrassed to be nominated by an email that insulted the voting members no fewer than 3 times.

Andy

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Pascal Meunier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:owner-cve-
>>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark J Cox
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:27 AM
>>> To: jericho <[hidden email]>
>>> Cc: cve-editorial-board-list <[hidden email]>
>>> 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
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: nomination for the Editorial board: Kurt Siefried

Landfield, Kent B
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." <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:owner-cve-
>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark J Cox
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:27 AM
>> To: jericho <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: cve-editorial-board-list <[hidden email]>
>> 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