[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 14:10:47 EST 2010


I think Kate's idea is great and should be given more thought.

The concept of a 'chapter/conferences fund' is a great compromise between
the models discussed on this thread. It would empower all chapters and still
reward the chapter that successfully delivered the conference profits (in
fact in the model proposed by Kate the local chapter would have
theoretically direct access to 40% of the profit, versus the previously
discussed 30%)

This chapter fund could also be the source of the GCC funding (i.e. the next
financial year would be the only year that OWASP central would seed the GCC
'Chapter/Conferences Fund' )

Dinis Cruz

On 14 December 2010 18:32, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20101214/b1d02662/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list