[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 13:40:36 EST 2010


I still disagree.

Where did 40/60 come into this?  That's the membership split.

What is the difference between the "Chapter Fund" and the main OWASP
financials?  I don't see the distinction.

I also think that 10% is still a far too significant amount in the edge
cases, which is why I'm a proponent of caps.

I still have not heard/seen 1 example of where chapters are not getting the
support they need.  I keep asking, and no-one can give me an example.
 People can come up with a bunch of hypotheticals, but no actual, real world
examples.  I believe this is a perceived provlem, not a real one.

-Mark

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org>wrote:

> Group, everyone has valid points.  Chapters want to be empowered to be able
> to secure the funding they need to move their chapter ahead.  The foundation
> depends on the revenue to provide support to all 160 + chapters plus fund
> committee projects as well as a myriad of other obligations and “wish
> lists.”
>
>
>
> I would suggest a moderate compromise….
>
>
>
> 1.  implement a 40/60 revenue split from the conference profits
>
> 2.  60% goes directly to the “mothership” to make sure that operational
> costs are covered
>
> 3. 10% goes directly to the local chapter who provided the volunteers to
> help the conference run successfully
>
> 4.  30% goes into a “chapter fund” that is available to ALL chapters for
> local chapter activities.
>
>
>
> This makes sure that the local chapter is “rewarded” directly and that
> there are still funds available to assist other chapters who may just be
> getting started and need a bit of a financial platform on which to get
> going.  (I can point to the new Uruguay chapter as an example).  The host
> chapter is most certainly eligible to withdraw funds from this pool as well.
>
>
>
> My major hold up with the revenue split was the idea (from a strictly
> operational and global perspective) of the mothership not having sufficient
> funds available to assist chapters who are not large enough to have hosted a
> major AppSec Event.
>
>
>
> Kate Hartmann
>
> Operations Director
>
> 301-275-9403
>
> 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:* Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:04 AM
> *To:* Dave Wichers
> *Cc:* global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org; Eoin; Richard Greenberg;
> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org; global_conference_committee
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue
> Splitting
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your input.  I'm also looping in the chapters and membership
> committees.
>
>
>
> Is this someting you think that the board wants to tackle, or do you want
> us to continue at the Committee level?
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> I agree with Mark. I think the assistance of the local chapter should be
> rewarded but a lot of the assistance comes from OWASP itself and the track
> record of having the AppSec USA event year after year.
>
>
>
> And I really think OWASP central can more easily allocate large amount of
> funds more wisely to the benefit of all of OWASP and its community.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
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/20101214/c2e335df/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list