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

[BOARD] Summary of Current Board Roles, Tasks, and Expectations

All,

Each Board member should have received an individual email describing
my understanding of their own role, tasks, and expectations.  Please
provide feedback.  (Associates or managers of members who happen to be
on this list did not receive an email.)

An example email is included at the end of this message, for the
public record.

After the Board finalizes the roles, and each member is comfortable
with the assessment of their own contributions, I propose that we
publicize the individual expectations on the CVE web site.

Here is a summary of my current assessment, though these numbers may
change based on feedback from Board members, not to mention changes in
Board membership.


Total Board Members
-------------------

40 (not including MITRE, which has 3)


Recommended Actions
-------------------
   5 Leave    = Member may be asked to leave
  13 Evaluate = Member's participation needs clarification
  22 Stay     = Member is expected to stay on Board

Upon closer examination, few people were contributing so little that
they are in danger of being asked to leave.  However, some of the
"evaluate" members may leave and/or become Emeritus members.


Roles
-----
  31 Technical
   5 Liaison
   2 Advocate  (pending recommendation by the Board)
   2 Emeritus  (pending agreement by the member)

These figures are not really surprising.  Most roles were easy to
identify based on the formal writeup of the roles that was posted
earlier.


Types of Membership
-------------------
  21 Charter = Added before Sep. 29, 1999 (first CVE release)
   3 Early   = Not a charter member, but was recruited before Sep. 29, 1999
  13 Recent  = Added between January 2000 and December 2000
   3 New     = January 2001 or later

The time frames for recent, early, and new membership may change as
time progresses.  The CVE task leaders decided that the initial public
release of CVE was a good date for distinguishing between charter and
other members.  Note that corporate acquisitions can make this
distinction fuzzy, as some organizations weren't charter members, but
acquired other organizations that were.  The reason this matters is
that we are noticing an inconsistent use of this terminology in some
members' marketing materials.


Task participation
------------------

The following tasks were identified in an earlier email to the
Editorial Board list.

Here is a table of codes for the level of participation:
  Regular        = Regularly participates in the task
  Periodic       = Periodically participates in the task
  FormerlyActive = Formerly was regular/active in the task over 6 months ago
  Expected       = Member was expected to perform task but is not
  Suggested      = Member is suggested to perform the task
  N/A            = Does not participate; not expected to

Voting:
   8 Regular
  11 Periodic
   5 FormerlyActive
   5 Expected
   1 Suggested
  10 N/A

Consulting:
  12 Regular
  11 Periodic
   6 FormerlyActive
   1 Expected
  10 N/A

Content:
   2 CNA        = Member may become, or consult on, being a CNA
   6 ContribDB  = Member contributed database, or is source for new issues
   9 Multi      = Member contributed database and may be involved in CNA issues
   7 Suggested  = Member suggested to contribute to CNA/content discussions
  16 N/A

CIEL:
   9 Regular
   7 Suggested
  24 N/A
	
Outreach:
   2 Regular
   5 Periodic
  33 N/A



The number of regular and periodic voters is higher than I had
expected, but the general lack of enough votes indicates that this
number is insufficient.  However, it is recognized that the current
guidelines for voting may be problematic.  Several formerly active
voters were prolific, which has also contributed to the shortfall.  On
the other hand, voting has been more regular in recent months.

Consulting is a broad term, but it is good to see this level of
participation.  Consultation drives the direction of CVE and brings up
the interesting issues.

Content tasks will be increasing significantly this summer, given the
plans for more visible candidate reservation and the addition of more
CNA's.  For those who have contributed databases to CVE, there is a
question of how long that contribution should be recognized before
they become "formerly active" contributors.  At the very least, until
MITRE processes the databases :-)

CIEL participation is still new, and it's reflected in the stats.
"Regular" participants have shown a continued offline interest in
CIEL, or contributed to the CIEL meeting at the face-to-face meeting.
Other members are suggested to contribute.  We have the basis of the
CIEL working group here.

Outreach may be the most visible thing that a Board member can do with
respect to "promoting" CVE.  Ironically, however, this is often the
most difficult for us to observe.

**************************************************************************

Below is an example of the individual emails that were sent to Board
members.

================================================================
Full Name: Joe Schmoe
Organization: AbsolutelySuperSecure, Inc.
Email: joe.schmoe@example.com

Added to Board: 20000428 (earliest is 19990509)
Membership: Recent (Added between January 2000 and December 2000)

Suggested Role: Technical

Recommended Action: Evaluate (Member's participation needs clarification)

Task Participation:
   Consult: FormerlyActive
           (Formerly was regular/active in the task over 6 months ago)
   Voting: Periodic
           (Periodically participates in the task)
   Date of last vote: 20010215
   Content: N/A
   CIEL: Suggested
           (Member is suggested to perform the task)
   Outreach: N/A


Comments
--------
current voting levels not as originally agreed to; suggest
participation in CIEL
Page Last Updated or Reviewed: May 22, 2007