[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 14:17:43 EST 2010


Clearly, we are never going to build consensus on this.....

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
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/20101214/50fd8842/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list