[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Kate Hartmann kate.hartmann at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 10:08:57 EST 2010


I wanted to make sure the chapter committee was involved in this thread too.

 

There is a benefit to "empowering" the local chapters to spend their money.
This was the purpose for the 40/60 split on membership funds - to give the
chapter's  funds to use for points listed below by Eoin.   From what I have
seen, this model has provided chapters with funding.  The purpose of the
membership split was also, in part, to encourage local chapters to increase
their local membership and communicate with corporate supporters.

 

The active chapters are easily sustainable.  One reason the active chapters
are successful is because their leaders are heavily involved with
committees, board, etc. (London , NY, Sweden, Belgium - as examples).  These
chapter leaders have taken it upon themselves to make themselves aware of
the additional resources available to them.  No chapter has EVER been denied
financial support or resources, that I know of.

 

The idea that a chapter would need an injection of $30K or more just to have
on hand seems a bit ambitious, but I understand your point, Dinis.

 

How about requesting the chapter to outline the expenditures for the next
year, so there is a plan and some forward thinking on the part of the
chapter.  Many of the chapter leaders that I've worked with either host a
conference because they think it's a cool thing to do and they want to
inject some energy into their locality or they have a specific goal for
their chapter.  We require a conference budget when reviewing AppSec
proposals, perhaps we should consider adding a "chapter budget" as well.

 

Additionally, perhaps it should be tasked to the chapter's committee to
improve communication among chapter leaders to make sure they are aware of
the resources available to them.

 

 

Kate Hartmann

Operations Director

301-275-9403

 <http://www.owasp.org/> www.owasp.org 

Skype:  Kate.hartmann1

 

From: global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org
[mailto:global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of
Mark Bristow
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:52 AM
To: dinis cruz
Cc: global_conference_committee; Richard Greenberg; Eoin
Subject: Re: [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue
Splitting

 

That's not what I said, in fact I think that chapters can come up with new
and creative ways to wisely spend funds.  What I said was that the
organization at large needs them too.  Is there some outcry of chapters that
need more $ and can't find a source that I am missing?

 

My point is that chapters may do all of the things you mention, but with the
exception of some cases they are not.  The ones that are adopting projects,
flying in speakers et all are doing so already as far as I know with the
funds they have and the additional funding sources from the foundation that
are available, especially with some of the recently established programs.  

 

I agree that chapters should have some funds and feel empowered to use them
as they see fit, however in my example 30k represents 10% of ALL 2009 OWASP
Expenditures (based on
http://www.owasp.org/images/3/3f/2009AnnualReport.pdf).  I feel that this is
disproportionate for one chapter to hold 10% of OWASP operational
expenditures.  Also there are 174 chapters.  With this model, we can easily
over-subscribe our funding to chapters, so this is not sustainable.

 

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:18 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

Why not allowing the chapters have those funds? Do you think they will abuse
it?

 

There is no reason why chapters cannot have a bigger role in OWASP's
governance and on money spending activities (for example a chapter could
'adopt' a number of projects / Committee and on the Summit case cover the
cost of multiple participants). The main thing about money at OWASP is
people feeling empowered to spend it wisely, which if you look around is
actually a big problem at OWASP.

 

Everytime we spend a bit of money we tend to make more money, so one of the
big issues we have at OWASP is for our leaders to feel empowered and
motivated to spend it.

 

Ultimately it is all OWASP money, so the more it is wisely spent the better
(and remember that the local chapters will only screw-up once :)  i.e. if
there are abuses we can always move that money to OWASP central)

 

And if the chapter cannot find a way to spend the money wisely, then after a
period (6 or 12 months) that money should go back to OWASP central (the idea
of an 'expiry date' we talked before)

 

Dinis Cruz

 

On 13 December 2010 14:07, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:

Sorry I got to push back.  Take AppSec US, your telling me you are fine with
them getting 30k in their budget?  Compared with my new model that's 27k
that the foundation can't spend on stuff like the summit.

 

I'm ok with raising the cap to say 5/7 k but I don't see the needs of any
chapter to have such a substantial budget, especially when chapters don't
have to front money from their budgets for conferences or events (GCC does
that) and there are a variety of funding sources like  OotM and the
$500/$2500 available through dinis's new program..

 

I agree chapters need a pool of funds for a variety of items (especially the
ones I can't think of) but I can't see a chapter spending 30k even over a
few years.

-Mark

 

Sent from my wireless device


On Dec 13, 2010, at 8:48 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

I agree with Tin that there shouldn't be a cap on the split to the chapter.

 

Also, with the Summit, we are going to (hopefully) start the tradition that
the local funds should also be used for such events/activities (which is
where OWASP central would use that money).

 

And after all, its all OWASP money, the only difference is 'who feels
empowered to spend it'

 

On the topic of spending, in the future it might be a good idea to put an
expiry date on those funds so that the Chapters/Projects don't just sit on
the funds

 

Dinis Cruz

On 13 December 2010 07:34, Tin Zaw <tin.zaw at owasp.org> wrote:

I don't think the cap is a good idea. If the conference generates more than
$10k in profit (like AppSec USA did), why not let the local chapter(s) get
more share. It's a win-win for both local chapter(s) and HQ -- more
incentive to make it more profitable. The cap could also mean more incentive
for local chapters to cap conference profits at $10k by spending conference
on extravagant stuff like gifts, parties, etc. 

 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
wrote:

Ooh, important oversite, sorry just not thinking.

 

Membership revenue will count to the conference overall budget (at the
normal rate).  This way, it indirectly still helps the chapter (by
increasing profitability) and is infinitely easier for Kate and Alison to
reconcile the ledger.

 

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
wrote:

How do you plan to handle Membership signups under this new policy (i.e
bullet #2 below)?


Michael Coates

OWASP

 

 

 

On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:

 

GCC,

 

The current policy on how conference profit splitting is done is unclear and
has been unevenly applied.  This issue has come up recently and I can't seem
to find a final policy decision on it, so here we go.  We should get this
squared away with a vote after some debate.  Things that people thought it
were are:

*	None
*	Chapter gets the normal split of any Membership signups/renewals
done with Con registration & at the conference
*	Chapters get 30% of Conference Profits (note, profits not revenue),
Conference keeps membership income

I propose a new policy:

 

A conference host chapter shall receive 30% of conference profits, up to a
cap of $3,000 into their chapter expense account.  In cases where there are
multiple host chapters, 30% of conference profits, up to a cap of $4,000
shall be split evenly among the host chapters, or via any distribution
agreed upon by the host chapters.  This applies to Global AppSec and
Regional Conferences.  Profits from local events will be split 50/50 with
the foundation.

 

Now, before we get into "why do chapters need to get a split at all", a camp
I used to be a member of, hosting an AppSec conference or regional
conference is a HUGE undertaking, as we all know.  I think this is a fair
policy in compensating the local chapter who volunteers much of their time
to put on a conference.  While the amounts are capped I think it's a
reasonable cap as chapters don't generally have large expenses.

 

Any thoughts, comments on this?

 

 



-- 
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

_______________________________________________
Global_conference_committee mailing list
Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee

 




-- 
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


_______________________________________________
Global_conference_committee mailing list
Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee




-- 

Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw


_______________________________________________
Global_conference_committee mailing list
Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee

 

 




-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20101213/d49e130e/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list