[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] [Global_membership_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Tom Brennan tomb at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 14:35:21 EST 2010


Monitoring this thread....   I want to point out that TODAY there is $74,000 allocated to chapters http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p6IFyntQTi7t-yH-peiD8Aw

We have a summit coming up and the purpose to get people together who want to help the mission to the same place so that we can get some work done..  (think of this thread being done face-to-face guys) 

If you are a chapter leader, look at your funds in the bucket and release the funds that you do not have allocated for Q1 2011.  

As example I have 4k in the bucket from NYC chapter we are going to release 2k to the summit by funding our leaders at $500 per to put towards there travel.  If they can't use it, we will donate it to the general fund at the end of this month.

Brennan




On Dec 14, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Michael Coates wrote:

> A few thoughts.
> 
> 1. We aren't going to find a magical solution that makes everyone happy. Compromise is always required.
> 2. We are kind of going about this the wrong way.  It seems we keep suggesting solutions without agreeing on the problem statement and intended goals.
> 3. I do think Mark has a great point regarding "I still have not heard/seen 1 example of where chapters are not getting the support they need." 
> 
> So, can I suggest the following more structured discussion.
> 
> - We figure out what problem we are trying to solve? Maybe that is as simple as how to disperse funds from conferences.
> - We put together the factors of concern E.g. Chapters should be rewarded for hard work, Chapters need more money because...., OWASP mothership needs more money because...., etc
> - We create a proposal for a solution, put it on the wiki, and argue why its right
> - We (determine who "we" is) cast a vote for the best proposal and go with it.
> 
> Otherwise we will talk ourselves to death and never decide on anything. 
> 
> 
> Michael Coates
> OWASP
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>>  
> <snip>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee



More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list