[Owasp-board] Fwd: [Global_chapter_committee] ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes

Seba seba at owasp.org
Wed Mar 21 13:34:56 UTC 2012


fellow board members, committee chair leaders,

open to discuss this per email or a dedicated conference call.

My opinion on these core questions are:

1) The global AppSec conferences have been and should in the future be the
funding resource for the foundation, I don't see chapter events playing a
role in this

2) I am in favor of the federated model, where the "power" comes from the
local chapters

--seba

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board]
ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes
To: Seba <seba at owasp.org>
Cc: OWASP Chapters Committee <global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>,
OWASP Foundation Board List <owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>, Mark Bristow <
mark.bristow at owasp.org>


Seba,

I agree 100%.  The Conferences Committee does not have the time, the
energy, or the willpower to support events across the entire organization.
This is reflected in the plan where we requested a full headcount to
conferences in order to take it on.  Additional headcount would probably be
necessary as well for the Chapters Committee to support any sort of a
budget process.  I believe that the GConfC should focus on making the
Global AppSec events succesful both from a profit and educational
perspective and on putting the infrastructure in place (RegOnline, OCMS,
EasyChair, etc) to support the other conferences and events.  The notion
that four AppSec events each year cannot support the Foundation is absurd.
I've looked at the numbers and AppSec USA alone could probably support the
Foundation if we wanted it to.

The Chapters should be free to innovate and create events for whatever
purpose they desire as long as it supports OWASP's mission.  As a
Foundation, we should be creating and supporting a set of guidelines such
as brand usage, content selection, etc, but should not be looking for ways
to limit a Chapter's growth potential.

Seba hinted at it, but at the core of this debate is a decision on whether
the Foundation wants to adhere to a strong centralized model or wants to be
like a tree and provide a strong set of roots and support in order to allow
the leaves and branches to flourish.  The majority of the plans which I
laid out in my discussions with Mark were stricken down with the notion
that the four AppSec Conferences cannot alone support what the Foundation
wants to accomplish and the oganization relies on Chapter events to pick up
the slack.  Instead of forcing this issue back down on the committees, I'd
like to see the Board give clear guidance on this one crucial point that
will provide direction for the entire organization for years to come.    I
would like the Board to evaluate two questions:

1) Should the AppSec Conferences alone provide enough funding to support
the Foundation or do we need to rely on profit from Chapter events to
subsidize this gap?

2) Should the Foundation adhere to a strong centralized model of governance
in order to control the Chapters, Projects, etc or does the Foundation
desire a model providing high-level guidance, support, and encouragement
without the need to get hands-on with everything?

The sooner the Board can come up with an answer to these two questions, the
sooner the Committees can come up with a set of policies that fits these
desires.

~josh

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:

> Here is my input:
>
> I see the conferences committe to support the global conferences: these
> are our flagships and generate the majority of the income for the central
> OWASP Foundation.
> All events (including paying) that are organized by chapters are to be
> governed by the chapters committee
> the goal of these events is chapter outreach & growth
> All income generated by these chapter events should go back to the chapter
> (minus the costs incurred, e.g. regonline if that is used) and it is up to
> the local chapter board to use this for their own purpose or to "share
> back" towards other chapters, projects or the summit.
> I am a firm believer of local growth and minimal interference from the
> OWASP Foundation: it scales much bigger and faster.
> As chapter committee we should focus on (re)starting chapters and help
> them grow into big chapters with maximum impact in their region.
> As chapter committee we should facilitate knowledge & best practice
>  transfer from succesfull chapters towards new or struggling chapters.
>
> I don't think we should impose a budget on chapters, although we can point
> this out as best practice
> I don't think we can set one single "split", instead we should encourage
> and provide incentives to chapters to raise their own means and share with
> the rest of OWASP
>
> The impact on a global scale of 10s or even 100s of strong and "wealthy"
> chapters that are empowered in their own region is way bigger than having
> one "wealthy" central OWASP foundation and 100s of "poor" sattelites
>
> --seba
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Ivy <ivy at owasp.org.cn> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for Josh's document collection and sharing.
>>
>> here is to express my points:
>>
>> *Annual Budget Process:*
>>
>> Agreed most of items listed in "OWASP Event Policy" Document from Josh.
>> But i don't agree with "  In the event that the chapter does not submit
>> a budget for the remaining funds or if any unbudgeted funds remain after
>> December 31, the chapter will be given one month to determine another OWASP
>> Chapter, Committee, or Project to allocate the unused funds toward. "
>>
>>  i think we should give a chapter another one year to determine the
>> remaining funds. Maybe we could not budget profit over 3-5 years, but 1-2
>> years are acceptable.
>> *Conference and Profit sharing : *
>> I agreed with Tin's idea and i suggest:
>>     1. Global AppSec Conferences : profit--100% to OWASP Foundation
>>     2. Self-supporting Events
>> --Profit --we may say 80% to local chapter and 20% to Foundation,
>> administrative overhead or regonline registration can charge for another
>> fee separately; If there is large amount of profit(we may set an amount or
>> decide by the chapters next year's budget), the chapter can choose to share
>> more percentage to Foundation or allocate part of funds to other
>> chapters/commitees/projects, etc.
>> -- Loss--100% to local chapter
>>     3. Events that require Financial Investment by the Foundation
>> --profit/loss:  how to split can be negotiable.
>>     4.  Events that require Financial Support by the Foundation
>> --Normally, new chapters always need financial support from Foundation.
>>
>> ------------------
>>  Ivy Zhang****
>>  ------------------ Original ------------------
>>  *From: * "Josh Sokol"<josh.sokol at owasp.org>;
>> *Date: * Tue, Mar 20, 2012 09:25 PM
>> *To: * "Matt Tesauro"<matt.tesauro at owasp.org>; **
>> *Cc: * "OWASP Foundation Board List"<owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>;
>> "OWASP Chapters Committee"<global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>;
>> "Mark Bristow"<mark.bristow at owasp.org>; **
>> *Subject: * Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board]
>> ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes
>>
>> We have 1 vote "Yes", 3 votes "No", and one vote absent.  The motion to
>> approve fails.
>>
>> Rather than ditch all of this hard work, I'd now like to put this back on
>> the committee to come up with a plan that satisfies *ALL *of the Board's
>> Guiding Objectives.  I have shared with you a Google Doc containing these
>> or you may refer to them as they were sent by Kate in a previous message.
>> I have also shared a Google Doc containing the wording for the policy that
>> you just voted on.  I realize that it's a short timeframe, but given the
>> timeline that the Board set for this I'd like to have the Chapter
>> Committee's ideal policy ready for a Committee vote no later than next *Monday,
>> March 26 *.  Tin has already put forward something that makes a good
>> base for this so I'd suggest working to improve upon this to make sure 1)
>> This satisfies all of the Board's objectives and 2) Everyone approves of
>> this general approach.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Matt Tesauro <matt.tesauro at owasp.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  > "single point of truth": why?
>>>
>>> I was one of the proponents of this guiding principal.  The idea was to
>>> have a method of knowing what events are going on for OWASP.
>>>  Fundamentally, and particularly for the full-time employees we have,
>>> knowing that we put on X local events in Y locations over the course of
>>> year helps form a clear picture of how active and vibrant our community is.
>>>  It also will allow us to focus energy on supporting events (be they
>>> conference or chapter ones) by providing us some numbers on how many occur
>>> and what they are like.  The current call for marketing & press information
>>> would be more helpful and focused if we had some easy to gather numbers at
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> This does not have to represent a significant burden to chapters - its
>>> simply the Foundation saying "Let us know what you're up to so we can help
>>> you and the community fulfill our mission"  It was *not* intended to be
>>> a "Get permission before you do something" principal.  I've seen the forms
>>> on OCMS and they're not large or painful.  At most 15 minutes to fill in a
>>> web form so that we can get better visibility on OWASP events overall was
>>> the intent.
>>>
>>> The one thing I was trying to avoid by the "single point of truth" was a
>>> list of events on the conference page (conferences) and a list of events on
>>> the chapters page (chapter events).  For those who are not inside the
>>> community, this makes no sense.  Having a "single point of truth" allows us
>>> to better list, organize (e.g. on the Wiki, geographically, etc), and
>>> promote OWASP's efforts to bring our message to broader groups.
>>>
>>> There will always be contention between centralized and de-centralized
>>> notions in OWASP.  As long as we stick to our core values (e.g. innovation)
>>> we can provide the best balance between laissez-faire and centralized
>>> command.  I see this as, like John Wilander recently pointed out, a "tax"
>>> on those parties wanting to put on OWASP events.  Its not much to pay and
>>> it helps drive and inform the overall community so it can iteratively get
>>> better over time.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -- Matt Tesauro
>>> OWASP Board Member
>>> OWASP WTE Project Lead
>>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Live_CD_Project
>>> http://AppSecLive.org <http://appseclive.org/> - Community and Download
>>> site
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  All,
>>>>
>>>> As chapters committee member, I am also voting No.
>>>> There are too many questions / remarks I have with the proposed policy:
>>>>
>>>>  Training: not part of the question (leave it up to the education
>>>> committee)
>>>>
>>>> How many chapter have > € 5000 now? Aren't we trying to solve a
>>>> challenge for the happy few with too many red tape for the upcoming
>>>> chapters?
>>>>
>>>> Why > 10k board approval required?
>>>>
>>>> Handbook chapter 4 is guidance, not policy: if we want to make it
>>>> mandatory we have to add it to the mandatory section
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't agree with "Have the responsibility and authority for supporting
>>>> and managing all chapter meetings": Why?
>>>>
>>>> "single point of truth": why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree that a chapter who charges a fee for an event = event
>>>> defacto "managed by the conferences committee"
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with the "single point of truth" for the conference page
>>>>
>>>> Why "Global Conferences Committee will take a more active, direct role
>>>> in the planning the marquee foundation events" : the original issue at hand
>>>> (lascon) was not about the global appsec events: why this direct role?
>>>>
>>>> Why does the conferences committee set the branding rules for all the
>>>> events?
>>>>
>>>> What business & authority does the conference committee have with the
>>>> chapter budgets?
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with " ■ It is the responsibility of the chapter to plan
>>>> ahead appropriately to get this budget through the Global Chapters
>>>> Committee approval process if they intend to use the event to generate
>>>> chapter revenue" => that would mean each event that e.g. Generates extra
>>>> chapter sponsoring requires the conferences approval: what are you trying
>>>> to achieve here?
>>>>
>>>> Chapter sponsorship should be explicitly out of this policy: only
>>>> governed by the chapters committee
>>>>
>>>> The split is not clear: 50/50 or policy per type of event (still to be
>>>> decided?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with the top-down management point of view in general: to
>>>> be scalable our guidance/policies should encourage local responsability and
>>>> empowerment.
>>>>
>>>> --seba
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Tin Zaw <tin.zaw at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh, Mark, and Sarah,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your hard work to come up with the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> I intend to vote No on this as the new policies are not in agreement
>>>>> with my philosophy of stronger chapters. In addition, they put much
>>>>> more burden on the committee members (of both committees).
>>>>>
>>>>> I am for stronger, more independent chapters with the board and the
>>>>> committees providing oversight, not routine management, to prevent bad
>>>>> things from happening. The goal for the board and the committees
>>>>> should not be to approve every decision by chapters.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are items in the proposal that I disagree more strongly with,
>>>>> but at this point, I won't elaborate on it, because my intent on No
>>>>> vote is based on philosophical standing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > For single-chapter events there would be two "buckets" each with a
>>>>> target
>>>>> > amount of the chapter budget.  For multi-chapter events we just add
>>>>> more
>>>>> > buckets for the additional chapter budgets.  Once a chapter bucket
>>>>> is full,
>>>>> > they stop earning money from the event and the remaining amount goes
>>>>> to the
>>>>> > Foundation.  This ensures that the Foundation and the Chapter earn
>>>>> money
>>>>> > from the event at an equal rate.  Your example of how the funds
>>>>> would get
>>>>> > split is correct.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Budgets are only necessary if a chapter wants to receive money from
>>>>> an event
>>>>> > or if they have more than $5,000 in their bank account at the end of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > year.  This was requested by the Board in the guiding objective
>>>>> which states
>>>>> > "We would like some sort of annual review, requirements, or rules to
>>>>> address
>>>>> > the issue of stale chapter funds in excessive amounts" as well as
>>>>> "We would
>>>>> > like some periodic recap on funds spent by chapters to help ensure
>>>>> funds are
>>>>> > appointed on items aligned with the OWASP Mission".  Yes, this does
>>>>> add some
>>>>> > additional operational work for our committee.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ~josh
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> can you explain:
>>>>> >> "Profit will be split 50/50 between the foundation and the chapter
>>>>> up
>>>>> >> until the chapter has received an amount equal to the chapter
>>>>> annual budget
>>>>> >> amount"
>>>>> >> My understanding is:
>>>>> >> if in belgium we have an annual budget of € 10000, and we organize
>>>>> an
>>>>> >> event with income resulting in a e.g. € 25000 the split would be €
>>>>> 15000 to
>>>>> >> the foundation and €10000 to the chapter?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> a general remark: it seems we are loading a lot of operational work
>>>>> on the
>>>>> >> committee in reviewing local budgets?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --seba
>>>>> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Please discuss.  We will be taking this to a committee vote for
>>>>> approval
>>>>> >>> at the next Chapter Committee meeting next Monday, March 19th.
>>>>> Please be
>>>>> >>> sure to send me and Sarah your vote before that deadline if you
>>>>> will be
>>>>> >>> unable to attend the meeting.  Thank you.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> ~josh
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Global Chapters Committee,
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> (Note: same email send to Conference Committee on separate thread)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> In response to the guiding objectives by the board, the
>>>>> Conferences and
>>>>> >>>> Chapter Committee Chairs have worked together to formulate some
>>>>> policy
>>>>> >>>> changes that we believe will meet the direction of the board
>>>>> while allowing
>>>>> >>>> chapters and the foundation to grow and innovate.  These points
>>>>> have been
>>>>> >>>> discussed at length and now we wish to hear your input on the
>>>>> matter.  We
>>>>> >>>> have agreed on the outlined plan below and as a result each of us
>>>>> will not
>>>>> >>>> make comments here past clarifications to any questions any of
>>>>> you have to
>>>>> >>>> the proposed policy.  We would like to cap the debate on this
>>>>> topic and take
>>>>> >>>> the following to a committee vote on Monday, March 19th using a
>>>>> majority
>>>>> >>>> approval rule for both committees in order to meet the board's 45
>>>>> day
>>>>> >>>> deadline.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> The Global Chapters Committee shall:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Manage all chapter meetings or trainings that do not
>>>>> charge a fee
>>>>> >>>> for admission.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Establish an annual budget process for all chapters
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      At the end of each calendar year, a chapter with more than
>>>>> $5,000
>>>>> >>>> in it's bank account must submit a budget to be reviewed by the
>>>>> Global
>>>>> >>>> Chapters Committee to justify the rollover of any funds beyond
>>>>> that amount.
>>>>> >>>> In the event that the chapter does not submit a budget for the
>>>>> remaining
>>>>> >>>> funds or if any unbudgeted funds remain after December 31, the
>>>>> chapter will
>>>>> >>>> be given one month to determine another OWASP Chapter, Committee,
>>>>> or Project
>>>>> >>>> to allocate the unused funds toward.  If no designations are made
>>>>> before
>>>>> >>>> February 1, then all unused funds will be transferred to the OWASP
>>>>> >>>> Foundation main account.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Any chapter with more than $10,000 must also obtain Board
>>>>> >>>> approval for their annual budget.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee will maintain "official"
>>>>> budgets on
>>>>> >>>> the wiki or via google docs where they are accessible to all OWASP
>>>>> >>>> participants.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee will update Chapter 4 -
>>>>> Section 7
>>>>> >>>> of the Chapter Handbook with the new budget policy.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Establish by June 1st chapter spending guidelines (These
>>>>> should
>>>>> >>>> be under Chapter 4 - Section 7.1 of the Chapter Handbook)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Have the responsibility and authority for supporting and
>>>>> managing
>>>>> >>>> all chapter meetings
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Chapter Handbook authored by the Global Chapters
>>>>> Committee
>>>>> >>>> shall serve as the single point of truth for all chapter policies
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee shall set all chapter
>>>>> policies
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> The Global Conferences Committee shall:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Manage all events that charge a fee for admission
>>>>> (voluntary
>>>>> >>>> donations exempted) and any free event determined by the
>>>>> organizer to be a
>>>>> >>>> conference versus a chapter meeting
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Have the responsibility and authority for supporting and
>>>>> managing
>>>>> >>>> all events
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee has the responsibility for
>>>>> >>>> procuring and managing centralized assets such as, but not
>>>>> limited to
>>>>> >>>> registration tools and financial management tools
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee policy page shall serve
>>>>> as the
>>>>> >>>> single point of truth for all event policies
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee shall set all event
>>>>> policies
>>>>> >>>> with the exception of the profit sharing policy which requires the
>>>>> >>>> concurrence of the majority of the Global Chapters Committee to
>>>>> be modified.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The OWASP Event Management System (formerly OCMS) will
>>>>> serve as
>>>>> >>>> the single point of truth for OWASP events, AND will provide
>>>>> functionality
>>>>> >>>> to track chapter meetings in the next release
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will revisit current event
>>>>> >>>> definitions and include clear, objective definitions of event
>>>>> types as well
>>>>> >>>> as the anticipated support level from the foundation.  These must
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>>> approved by June 1st.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will take a more active,
>>>>> direct
>>>>> >>>> role in the planning the marquee foundation events (currently
>>>>> defined as
>>>>> >>>> Global AppSec Events) including having a representative serve as
>>>>> Chair for
>>>>> >>>> these events.  (For this, Global Conferences Committee will
>>>>> require a full
>>>>> >>>> time support asset to handle the additional event coordination.
>>>>> Without
>>>>> >>>> these additional resources the conferences committee can not take
>>>>> on this
>>>>> >>>> added responsibility and will maintain an advisory/oversight role)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      Any and all event policies in effect at the time of event
>>>>> >>>> approval shall apply to the event without modification unless a
>>>>> specific
>>>>> >>>> requirement to do so is set by the Board.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will implement a policy
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>>> managing all event funds through the foundation
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The OWASP foundation will provide all "seed funds" needed
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>>> events up to the approved event budget and beyond with Global
>>>>> Conferences
>>>>> >>>> Committee approval
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee shall be responsible for
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>> review, approval and signature of all contracts related to events
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee may provide an exception
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>>> events with extraordinary circumstances
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Any event using the OWASP brand not using the Foundation to
>>>>> >>>> process it's finances will be in violation of OWASP brand usage
>>>>> rules and
>>>>> >>>> will be referred to the Board for action
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will set the following
>>>>> branding
>>>>> >>>> rules except where it is unreasonable to do so
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      All events must use "OWASP" in their title, such as
>>>>> "OWASP's
>>>>> >>>> AppSec XYZ"
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Events may use their own logos so long as they include the
>>>>> OWASP
>>>>> >>>> wasp (The Global Conferences Committee will manage logo
>>>>> approvals), color
>>>>> >>>> palate is optional
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      The OWASP logo must be present on all websites/materials,
>>>>> except
>>>>> >>>> where it is unreasonable to do so
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      A link back to owasp.org must be present on all
>>>>> >>>> websites/materials except where it is unreasonable to do so
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee sets the following event
>>>>> profit
>>>>> >>>> sharing model for all events:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      At the time of approval, the Global Conferences Committee
>>>>> will
>>>>> >>>> record the chapter's current annual budget expenditures (referred
>>>>> to as
>>>>> >>>> chapter annual budget)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>                                           ■Chapters that do not
>>>>> have
>>>>> >>>> approved budgets shall have the chapter annual budget value set
>>>>> to $0
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>                                           ■It is the
>>>>> responsibility of
>>>>> >>>> the chapter to plan ahead appropriately to get this budget
>>>>> through the
>>>>> >>>> Global Chapters Committee approval process if they intend to use
>>>>> the event
>>>>> >>>> to generate chapter revenue
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Profits are all monies collected for the event (regardless
>>>>> of
>>>>> >>>> source) above the direct expenditures for the event
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>                                           ■Any membership
>>>>> registrations
>>>>> >>>> as result of an event will be handled per Global Membership
>>>>> Committee policy
>>>>> >>>> and are not considered in this equation
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Profit will be split 50/50 between the foundation and the
>>>>> chapter
>>>>> >>>> up until the chapter has received an amount equal to the chapter
>>>>> annual
>>>>> >>>> budget amount
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      After the chapter has received an amount equal to the
>>>>> chapter
>>>>> >>>> annual budget the Foundation shall receive 100% of the remaining
>>>>> profits.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ○      Any Event Losses shall be the responsibility of the
>>>>> Foundation
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Sarah Baso on behalf of Mark Bristow and Josh Sokol
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>> >>>> OWASP Operational Support:
>>>>> >>>> Conference Logistics & Community Relations
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Dir: 312-869-2779
>>>>> >>>> skype: sarah.baso
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>>>>> >>> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> >>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>>>>> > Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
>>>>> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
>>>>> Member, OWASP Global Chapter Committee
>>>>> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
>>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20120321/66727917/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list