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

Re: Working Group Participants Question

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 <scott.lawler@lp3.com> 
> 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
> > 
> > Scott.Lawler@LP3.com
> > 
> > 703-509-9330
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *From: *Kurt Seifried <kseifried@redhat.com>
> > *Date: *Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:11 AM
> > *To: *"Coffin, Chris" <ccoffin@mitre.org>
> > *Cc: *CVE Editorial Board Discussion 
> > <cve-editorial-board-list@mitre.org>
> > *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 <ccoffin@mitre.org> 
> > 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: secalert@redhat.com
> > 
> 
> 
>
Page Last Updated or Reviewed: May 02, 2018