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

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Mar 22 03:47:56 UTC 2012


I'm confused.  So many unknowns are what we run the Foundation on today.
Apparently we're relying on non-Foundational fundraising (events run by
chapter volunteers) to subsidize the gaps between Foundational fundraising
(AppSec, membership, sponsors) and our Foundational expenses.  The very
fact that the DC team, as an example, could decide tomorrow to just stop
holding their event and leave the Foundation short on cash tells me that
there is a very serious problem here whether you're willing to admit it or
not.  All committee debates and profit sharing policies aside, these are
not Foundation events and should never be counted in our budgets until the
revenue has actually been realized.  The only thing that the Foundation can
actually count on to raise money are the four AppSec events, membership,
and sponsorship.  Even those are subject to the whims of our supporters.  I
guess what I'm saying is that relying on money from anything other than
those things which the Foundation has direct control over is a recipe for
disaster.  Because of this, our efforts should be focusing on ways to
realize more revenue from the fundraising efforts we do have direct control
over and reduce expenses for the organization.

No, I don't think that if a chapter event suffers a loss the chapter
leaders should be liable.  It's not like they're padding their pockets with
the profits.  They are going to support the OWASP mission in one way,
shape, or form.  I also think that events can and should be run in such a
way as to minimize the risk of a loss.  Beyond an initial venue deposit
there are very few reasons why an event should be spending money before
revenue has been realized to cover the expenses.  Using LASCON as an
example, every dollar we spend is backed by a dollar we've already raised
via sponsorships and registrations.  Under this model the risk is greatly
minimized and the potential rewards are huge.

~josh

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:

> Respect your opinion thanks.
> I don't think we can run the foundation on so many unknowns. We have
> duties to our employees and our members.
> For the record I would not be in favour of simply relying on 4 events
> profit to run the foundation coupled with membership etc. I think it would
> stifle some global initiatives which go beyond the reach of any individual
> chapter.
> We need to strike a balance between global owasp and local chapters.
> So if a chapter event suffers a loss, shall chapter leaders be liable?
> Eoin
>
>
> Eoin Keary
> BCC Risk Advisory
> Owasp Global Board
> +353 87 977 2988
>
>
> On 21 Mar 2012, at 20:52, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> I respectfully disagree.  If you're asking if 4 AppSec Conferences in
> their current form can support all of the current and future plans of the
> Foundation, the answer is probably not.  To me, this indicates that it is
> not a matter of "simple math", but rather a matter of re-realizing the
> numbers as Foundation revenue = AppSec Profits + Sponsorships + Memberships
> and the expenses as the "cans", "shoulds", and "musts" that we can make
> happen using that revenue.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Josh that does not answer my question.
>> This is simple maths. I need to see the figures.
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> BCC Risk Advisory
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2012, at 19:37, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Eoin,
>>
>> To be blunt, on the expense side I'm simply saying that there are things
>> that we can do, things that we should do, and things that we must do.  If
>> you're asking for my personal opinion, I think that a good number of the
>> things on your list fall under that "can" category and decisions to carry
>> through with them should be based on the overall value to the organization
>> combined with us having the money and the people resources to do them.  I
>> might even argue that spreading $50k over 50 chapters to see what they
>> could accomplish with it would be far more valuable to OWASP's mission of
>> making application security visible than some of the other things I've seen
>> the organization spend that kind of money on in the past.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>> So to clarify,
>>> We are saying 4 events a year are going to pay for
>>>
>>> Employees
>>> Legal
>>> Accounting
>>> Project funding
>>> A summit
>>> Owasp on tour
>>> Internships
>>> Any loses incurred from events.
>>> etc
>>> etc
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm no accountant but........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eoin Keary
>>> BCC Risk Advisory
>>> Owasp Global Board
>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2012, at 16:49, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure if I gave it some significant thought I could come up with a
>>> bunch more, but here's a few off the top of my head:
>>>
>>> * We give away a TON of free passes to AppSec (I heard someone say like
>>> 40% IIRC).  Charging a reduced rate or even a minimal fee would
>>> significantly increase the profit margin.
>>>
>>> * Instead of spending time and energy focusing on non-AppSec events we
>>> could use that to find additional sponsorships for AppSec events.  Also, if
>>> the GConfC used it's resources to handle only the sponsorship portion of
>>> AppSec it would leave the chapter open to solely focusing on throwing a
>>> great event.
>>>
>>> * Focus on ways to promote AppSec outside of just the OWASP community.
>>> There are a ton of people out there who care about security.  BlackHat,
>>> RSA, DefCon, SANS, InfoSecWorld, etc are all proof that we are barely
>>> scratching the surface with the 650 attendees we had at AppSec last year
>>> (the largest to date I think).
>>>
>>> * Policies that encourage self-sustaining chapters means that they are
>>> no longer tapping the Foundation for money.  Templates for creating events
>>> that create self-sustaining chapters are event better.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh,
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to hear your ideas but we should likely take that discussion
>>>> offline.
>>>>
>>>> -Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I should probably add that while I'm happy to share those ideas with
>>>>> the group, my view is that this is the core of the reason why the GConfC
>>>>> needs to take a more active role in focusing on making the AppSec
>>>>> Conferences successful.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why my question was should the AppSec conferences provide the
>>>>>> funding for the Foundation and not does it or will it.  It's a question
>>>>>> about the ideology of the organization aimed to get a direction from the
>>>>>> board.  It's not meant to address how things were, but rather how we think
>>>>>> they should be.  Could the four AppSec events provide funding for the
>>>>>> entire organization?  Absolutely.  I've got tons of ideas on how we could
>>>>>> increase profit margins from these events and lower Foundation expenses to
>>>>>> make it work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Mark Bristow <
>>>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seba,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I actually do not believe that statement #1 is accurate.  I think
>>>>>>> it's key to the conversation that a true revenue analysis be conducted here
>>>>>>> not only in how much money we take in from different categories of events
>>>>>>> (and memberships, sponsorships etc) but how much we spend on them as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>
>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20120321/76a81c72/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list