Re: On the topic of MITRE/Board transparency

[jericho <jericho@attrition.org>]

Scott,

On Thu, 11 May 2017, Scott Lawler wrote:

: I share the concerns about more transparency being needed.  That's a 
: pretty clear issue.
: 
: However, there's also another side of the coin to consider.  The 
Board 
: is here to help MITRE respond to requests like this too.

: Personally, I'll commit some time to help craft the response to 
Congress 
: if needed.  At a minimum, we can help edit a rough draft provided by 
: MITRE.  Did MITRE already respond to this request or not?
: 
: Just let us know what you need and we will help.

That requires MITRE be transparent to begin with. That isn't "another 
side 
of the coin" really. If they are transparent, they bring it the board, 
and 
we do our 'advisory role' collectively. Your wording implies that board 
failed somehow, when we weren't given any of that information until I 
brought it up, to the pain and headache of MITRE. I forced their hand, 
after giving them almost three weeks to bring it up despite my "two 
day" 
deadline. If that isn't a real picture into how MITRE operates, and how 
they see the value of the board? Not sure what is.

.b