Re: CD PROPOSAL: INCLUSION - Interim Decision 8/23
Craig Ozancin said:
>I agree with Kent Landfield, in that I also would like to see 3 or
>more Non-MITRE members.
Craig, what do you think of the approach of 2 non-MITRE for "old"
vulnerabilities that are tested by tools, and 3 non-MITRE for newer
>I also agree with Pacal Meunier that the definition for a "active
>voting member" be better defined.
I'm only starting to get a handle on the Board's voting patterns at
this time, so I don't think I could define "active voting member" very
- an "active voting member" at a particular time is one who either:
- (a) has voted in the previous two weeks
- (b) has voted several times in the previous month
- (c) has not declared themselves inactive
- the votes must be in a "similar issue," e.g. votes for candidates
are all a "similar issue," or votes for content decisions, or
votes for membership, or votes for other Board decisions
(a) and (b) assume that voting activities have taken place on a
regular basis, which is the case for the foreseeable future. (c)
allows someone to state that they should not be included, e.g. due to
vacations or deadlines. The "similar issue" votes are a recognition
of the different roles that Board members play.