[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CD PROPOSAL: DEFINITION - Interim Decision 8/23

In an offline vote to MODIFY this content decision, Pascal Meunier
made the following observation:

>I have a problem with "acceptance of a candidate by all voters implies
>universality."  If I vote to accept a candidate based on the inclusive
>definition of a vulnerability -- because I understand what others want
>to call a vulnerability --, that doesn't mean it is a universal
>vulnerability in my opinion.  I think you mean that unanimous votes of
>"universal" imply that the candidate is a universal vulnerability (in
>which case we vote on two things at once)?  The above sentence
>suggests that I should vote to REJECT all the vulnerabilities that I
>don't consider "universal" vulnerabilities, in contradiction with the
>opening statements of the proposal.

Thanks for spotting that ambiguity.  I agree that the intention was
what Pascal stated, namely if everyone votes for a vulnerability to be
"universal," then it becomes universal.

If this content decision is ACCEPTed, then voters must vote in
accordance with the inclusive definition.

The details of voting on the "universal" attribute need to be worked
out before the next candidate proposals take place.  I imagine that
each voting candidate "ballot" will contain 2 separate entries, one to
ACCEPT/REJECT/MODIFY, and another for "universality."  There is the
question of filling this out for the original 650 candidates, but I
think it's achievable.

- Steve

Page Last Updated: May 22, 2007