Working Group Participants Question

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

Working Group Participants Question

Coffin, Chris

CVE Board Members,

 

In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address who can or cannot participate.

 

Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before the end of the day on Friday 5/4.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Working Group Participants Question

Scott Lawler
Imho, no charter changes needed.   

Let’s not create work for ourselves for an edge case.  If someone is the right person to help on a working group, that’s great.  Let them help.  

Scott 

On May 2, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Coffin, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:

CVE Board Members,

 

In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address who can or cannot participate.

 

Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before the end of the day on Friday 5/4.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Working Group Participants Question

Kurt Seifried
In reply to this post by Coffin, Chris
Maybe simply have people show at least one good reason as to why they should participate? I'd worry that people may join these things to try and pad their resumés. It doesn't have to be anything amazing, "My company uses CVE a lot for our software we produce" or "We're a security firm and care about consuming CVE". 

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Coffin, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:

CVE Board Members,

 

In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address who can or cannot participate.

 

Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before the end of the day on Friday 5/4.

 

Regards,

 

Chris




--

Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Working Group Participants Question

Scott Lawler

Kurt,

If they are “by invitation only” from existing members or CNAs, does that address your concern?

 

Working groups are meant to be temporary as well so I’m not sure how much of an issue this will be.

 

I welcome your thoughts.  

 

Thank you,  

Scott

[hidden email]

703-509-9330

 

From: Kurt Seifried <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:11 AM
To: "Coffin, Chris" <[hidden email]>
Cc: CVE Editorial Board Discussion <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Working Group Participants Question

 

 

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Coffin, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:

CVE Board Members,

 

In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address who can or cannot participate.

 

Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before the end of the day on Friday 5/4.

 

Regards,

 

Chris



 

--


Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: 
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Working Group Participants Question

Kurt Seifried-2
Yeah that would definitely solve that problem mostly. I think it still might be a good idea also for context for other people joining the group. 

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Scott Lawler <[hidden email]> wrote:

Kurt,

If they are “by invitation only” from existing members or CNAs, does that address your concern?

 

Working groups are meant to be temporary as well so I’m not sure how much of an issue this will be.

 

I welcome your thoughts.  

 

Thank you,  

Scott

[hidden email]

703-509-9330

 

From: Kurt Seifried <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:11 AM
To: "Coffin, Chris" <[hidden email]>
Cc: CVE Editorial Board Discussion <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Working Group Participants Question

 

 

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Coffin, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:

CVE Board Members,

 

In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address who can or cannot participate.

 

Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before the end of the day on Friday 5/4.

 

Regards,

 

Chris



 

--


Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: 
[hidden email]




--
Kurt Seifried
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Working Group Participants Question

Pascal Meunier
I had understood working groups as being composed only of board members, but as usual
Kurt and Scott came up with a good solution.

Pascal

On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 09:43 -0600, Kurt Seifried wrote:

> Yeah that would definitely solve that problem mostly. I think it still
> might be a good idea also for context for other people joining the group.
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Scott Lawler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Kurt,
> >
> > If they are “by invitation only” from existing members or CNAs, does that
> > address your concern?
> >
> >
> >
> > Working groups are meant to be temporary as well so I’m not sure how much
> > of an issue this will be.
> >
> >
> >
> > I welcome your thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > 703-509-9330
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Kurt Seifried <[hidden email]>
> > *Date: *Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:11 AM
> > *To: *"Coffin, Chris" <[hidden email]>
> > *Cc: *CVE Editorial Board Discussion <[hidden email]>
> > *Subject: *Re: Working Group Participants Question
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe simply have people show at least one good reason as to why they
> > should participate? I'd worry that people may join these things to try and
> > pad their resumés. It doesn't have to be anything amazing, "My company uses
> > CVE a lot for our software we produce" or "We're a security firm and care
> > about consuming CVE".
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Coffin, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > CVE Board Members,
> >
> >
> >
> > In the last two Board meetings there was discussion about whether language
> > was needed in the Board charter (or working group charters) to state
> > specifically who can and cannot participate in the working groups. My
> > recollection is that when the first WGs were created, the intent was for
> > the WGs to be open to anyone in the community who showed interest, and not
> > just Board members or CNAs. The question being proposed here is in regards
> > to whether a charter update is needed to include this language. As it
> > stands today, the Board charter (and working group charters) do not address
> > who can or cannot participate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Board members present during the 4/25 conference call felt that we could
> > move forward with the prior intent without an update to the charters. If
> > you feel differently and believe that this language should be added to the
> > charter or charters now, please reply with your reasons or concerns before
> > the end of the day on Friday 5/4.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
> > PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
> > Red Hat Product Security contact: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
>