cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Newcomer III

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election

@AppDefects wrote: Where did everyone go?

 

I think everyone is taking a much needed breath. It's certainly not a pretty spectator sport

 

but, back to the reason that the thread was started.....

I'm still not receiving the email blasts from (ISC)2 and even though Wim rightly argues that email sometimes goes down a black hole, that's two for two (more than coincidence). I'm not alone. I've been contacted by a number of folk who aren't getting notified to their registered emails. 

 

Member services are aware, but I haven't heard anything back yet. Will keep the community updated when I have.

Advocate II

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election

I know important emails such as those concerning the elections are likely not to be subject to the communication preferences, but just to confirm I do have all the communication options enabled in my member profile, and I seem to receive all emails without issue - as far as I'm aware, anyway!

 

comms-prefs.png

 

Community Champion

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election

> TrickyDicky (Newcomer III) posted a new reply in Member Support on 06-28-2019

> @AppDefects wrote: Where did everyone go?   I think everyone is taking a much
> needed breath.

I assume that quite a few are exhausted. But I'd say a not inconsiderable number
have been appalled by some of the revelations over the past few days ...

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
I don't yet have a solution, but I have a new name for the
problem. - Ross A. Leo, CISSPforum, 20050712
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

............
This message may or may not be governed by the terms of
http://www.noticebored.com/html/cisspforumfaq.html#Friday or
https://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/1468
Advocate I

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@rslade wrote:
> TrickyDicky (Newcomer III) posted a new reply in Member Support on 06-28-2019

> @AppDefects wrote: Where did everyone go?   I think everyone is taking a much
> needed breath.

I assume that quite a few are exhausted. But I'd say a not inconsiderable number
have been appalled by some of the revelations over the past few days ...

History is what it is and the past is a predictor of the future, right? Good, bad, indifferent, can the membership live with it? Probably. Transparency and openness is the best policy. I appreciated being briefed on how the slate of members was put together. I have much more confidence in the system working then I did a week ago. It has come a long way from Kentucky, that's for sure.

Advocate I

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election

I would also add that since there is a mature selection process the Board should remove the petition process from the Bylaws. Its utility as a check has been surpassed by the quality controls that are built into  the selection Committee.

Advocate I

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@dcontesti wrote:

@AppDefects wrote:

@wimremes wrote:

 

Maybe it is time to take a step back and look at why you really want to be a board member (again) and what the benefit is for the membership because I, for one, am pretty sure that once their votes are behind your name, you will ignore them just as much as you did before.    


The truth always comes out doesn't it? Is the real reason an urge for control because it was lost? Who's membership and organization is it? Who created it? Maybe it is time to enjoy lif

 


So why do I want to be a board member?  Hmmm why does anyone want to be a board member

 

 


Why do people run for office? This brief post examines the pathology of a candidate"That is why no good people run for office" and the constituents abstain from voting. In effect the selection Committee acts as our "shareholder proxy" in making the best and informed choices for us. 

Community Champion

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@AppDefects wrote:

...remove the petition process from the Bylaws...

Are you proposing that the Board be given exclusive jurisdiction to decide which candidates appear on the ballot?  That seems awfully close to the fox guarding the hen house.

 

I can see publishing "grades" for petition candidates using the same rubric as for nominated candidates and even the board potentially endorsing petition candidates, presuming the spirit of non-partisan voter education, not candidate suppression.

 

 

Advocate I

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@denbesten wrote:

@AppDefects wrote:

...remove the petition process from the Bylaws...

Are you proposing that the Board be given exclusive jurisdiction to decide which candidates appear on the ballot?  That seems awfully close to the fox guarding the hen house.

 

I can see publishing "grades" for petition candidates using the same rubric as for nominated candidates and even the board potentially endorsing petition candidates, presuming the spirit of non-partisan voter education, not candidate suppression.

 

 


You are correct. I am saying that the petition process is flawed. Quality variables for prospective petitioners are not considered. I have more faith in the selection Committee in executing on a mature process that vets prospective candidates. I have comfort in knowing that the number of candidates going onto the slate grew their leadership skills through Chapters. I have less and less empathy for petitioners trying to subvert the process in a power grab. I believe that the petition process was put in place because selection was rife with problems but that time has gone

 

Remove section IV (part 7) from the (ISC)2 Bylaws! Bring sanity to the selection process!

Community Champion

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@AppDefects wrote:

Quality variables for prospective petitioners are not considered.   I have more faith in the selection Committee in executing on a mature process that vets prospective candidates.

That is why my earlier comments called out the need to include both slate and petition candidates in a voter's guide and also to consider additionally endorsing petition candidates using the Board's same process.  Since the ultimate decision comes from the members, giving members the tools to evaluate "quality", using their own metrics is how we cultivate that faith.

 

I have comfort in knowing that the number of candidates going onto the slate grew their leadership skills through Chapters. I have less and less empathy for petitioners trying to subvert the process in a power grab.

Building comfort is the entire purpose behind election rules and voter education.  Education is what turns accusations of patronage [cite] into faith in the system.  Candidate profiles are how you can measure if candidates have the pedigree you desire and if you find their motivations true.

 

I believe that the petition process was put in place because selection was rife with problems but that time has gone

Problems that are gone today can always return tomorrow.  The bylaws delegate the selection process to the Board, making it possible for a future board to throw out the process and go fully cronyism.  A  mechanism for "the people" to forcefully replace the board through the petition process is the final safety-valve to counteract a rogue board.  Given that a disloyal board will not take steps that results in its loss of control, it is important that safety valves be both preexisting and untouchable by the board.

 

On a more positive note, petitions can also be a very effective way to correct unconscious bias on the board and to help find that talented "new blood" that every organization so desperately needs.

Contributor I

Re: (ISC)2 Board of Directors election


@AppDefects wrote:

I would also add that since there is a mature selection process the Board should remove the petition process from the Bylaws. Its utility as a check has been surpassed by the quality controls that are built into  the selection Committee.


While I ran a petition in 2011, I only later learned it exists as a relieve valve for the board. Similarly described by @denbesten @ Any member should, without a filter by any board, be able to run for election. The number of signatures used to be 1% but given the growth in membership that became prohibitive for members from small countries or underrepresented geographies. It was therefore decided to put the bar at 500 signatures. 

 

It is very much needed in the bylaws. Each candidate shares their platform. It is up to the membership to educate themselves prior to the election and, where possible, interact with the candidates. If candidates are not responsive or otherwise unavailable to the membership, that should be a big red flag for the membership.