It's not a bad thing to be an optimist, but the picture that is slowly emerging seems to indicate to me that what we're calling here a "CIE bug" is nothing but Intel sticking to its own specifications on safe operation of their chips. What we're talking about here is not necessarily getting to the bios engineers and coders, but an internal policy on safety and stability of their board and chips. Why? RMAs. They're in effect killing two birds with one stone. Yes, other board manufacturers have implemented the C1E 'hack' successfully, but most people will tell you the BX2 is the most stable board out there. I would think besides the obvious technological improvements, the persistent C1E kick-in helps to alleviate heat and voltage problems other boards may suffer.

For example, notice how the first advice to overclocking the BX2 in this thread and elsewhere is always to turn of C1E? Well, that myth is busted isn't it? Now, what if turning C1E off in the bios actually turned it off? Well here's a guess, all the extra voltage going into your processor would have been translated into heat which would have made your overclocks less stable. The difference between a stable and a non-stable overclock is less than 1c where heat becomes the siginificant factor.

So why put the feature in the bios? I can only speculate that if they didn't then maybe even RMclock, Clockgen, Everest, and all those third-party software will not work. In effect, intel left a hole knowing very well that hardcore overclockers will find and exploit it.

What needs to be done. Well, if Intel is going to tout this board as the overclockers board (which it is to a large extent) then they will have to go the whole nine yards. I am more than convinced at this stage that what we're fighting here is an internal policy instead of an oversight, or a bad code.
We'll need to put some pressure on the appropriate quarter as some have already suggested; it'll have to be significant too to warrant the appropriate response.
Regards.