RE: CD PROPOSAL: INCLUSION - Interim Decision 8/23

[Craig Ozancin <cozancin@axent.com>]

MODIFY

I agree with Kent Landfield, in that I also would like to see 3 or more
Non-MITRE members. I also agree with Pacal Meunier that the definition for a
"active voting member" be better defined.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 2:16 PM
> To: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
> Subject: CD PROPOSAL: INCLUSION - Interim Decision 8/23
>
>
> Please vote on this pervasive content decision using the space
> provided below.
>
>
> Content Decision: INCLUSION (What to include in the CVE)
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> VOTE:
>
> (Member may vote ACCEPT, MODIFY, REJECT, or NOOP.)
>
>
> A candidate vulnerability may be included in the CVE if all of the
> following conditions hold:
>
> 1) It satisfies the CVE vulnerability definition
>
> 2) It does not satisfy any Exception (see other content decisions)
>
> 3) At least 50% of active voting members vote to ACCEPT or MODIFY the
> candidate
>
> 4) At least 2 non-MITRE members from different organizations vote on
> the candidate, preferably 3.  If there are more than 5 active voters,
> then 75% of active voters will be preferred.
>