[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVE ID Syntax Vote - results and next steps
>Actually, the only thing I find to devolve this discussion is your comment. Kent and Brian are creating >a much needed (perhaps spirited) discussion.
>As I see it, they are being direct and challenging each >other (one part a bit more than the other), >which is good for a change.
Huh, OK. If that's how you read it I suspect there is little I can add to change your mind.
>Personally, I think the discussion stands the best chance to sway opinion to help us avoid another deadlock vote, which is what we need.
OK. I generally think discourse can be direct yet still polite. I suppose in a more academic setting that might not be the case.
>I do not intend for this to come across as rude,
>but for someone who hasn't really contributed to any dialogue for a very long time, I think it's a shame >that your one contribution now is to attack the "tone" of the discussion.
I don't generally speak to hear my own voice, please do not mistake that for lack of interest.
I actually have not been engaged with the CVE for some time so that might be a fair statement (if delivered in a different light). My lack of engagement was due to holding a different job than I had when elected to the board but I have certainly been a supporter over the years.
As I said earlier, I'll vote if it comes to that. Otherwise I'll read the 'spirited discussion'.
On 18 April 2013 15:58, Carsten Eiram <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Advanced Malware Group