was influenced through bullying instead of standing on its own merits.
trolling;  it should not be interpreted as apathy.
> The following is my personal opinion only and should not be viewed as any official CVE position.
> If Board members believe that this publicly-documented, long-established process should be changed, then I suggest that the *entire Board* should decide on a new process - not just Brian.
> In this instance, Step 1 - prospect identification - has already occurred with a Board member nominating a new member; but traditionally, the nomination has been done privately for reasons that will be explained later in this post.
> Step 2 includes obtaining a professional bio for the nominee, so that it can be presented to the Board in step 3.  Typically, this has required tailoring the prospect's bio to emphasize their CVE-relevant skills and experience.
> Step 3, Editorial Board Feedback, is done through a *private* list, not publicly.  If I recall correctly, there were at least two rationales for having private review: it allowed Board members to speak their minds freely, and it would avoid publicly embarrassing the nominee if the nominee was not approved.
> Step 3 also provides for a review period of at least two weeks.
> Finally, the current process does not require any formal vote.  As documented in Step 4, membership approval, MITRE gets "Editorial Board feedback to help guide whether the prospect should be approved for membership."  Typically, this has meant that the prospect receives support from many members, without any "no" votes.
> Again - if the Board wishes to change this process, then they can choose to do so; but in my opinion, a change should not be single-handedly forced by an individual member.
> P.S. A reminder that this is just my personal opinion.
>>> So about 5 days later, a single person has voted.