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

John Wilander john.wilander at owasp.org
Wed Dec 22 12:02:47 EST 2010


Friends, I'm proud I managed to read through this thread. Loads of text
indeed.

My current stand:

   - Hosting chapter(s) should get some share of the revenue. This is to
   keep the regional fire burning and grow OWASP around that chapter. If you
   first do AppSec and then go back to mediocre meetings with local speakers,
   the members will be disappointed. In Sweden we definitely felt we had to
   kick it up a notch after AppSec EU this summer. Now we're using our
   chapter's money to backup that next level. So far we've been able to get
   sponsoring so the money is still untouched.
   - Hosting chapter(s) should not get a *substantial* part of the revenue
   and there should be a cap. I don't like the notion of rich and poor chapters
   within the same foundation. After a successful AppSec you get a decent
   one-time sum to beef up your chapter, then you're back on the same terms as
   all the others. We can use the figures from AppSec US and EU 2008-2010 to
   nail a reasonable percentage and cap.

   /John


2010/12/22 Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>

> Perhaps we should put up some recommended policies, and vote on them.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Richard Greenberg <
> richard.greenberg at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Firstly, the Chapters are OWASP. Clearly you will have a hard argument to
>> deny any funding to chapters that host a conference. That just is not
>> prudent. The discussion should be what percentage the chapters get, should
>> there be a cap, and are there any strings attached.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>wrote:
>>
>>> There's the fundamental disagreement.  It's not the chapter's money, it's
>>> OWASP's.
>>>
>>> What's at debate here is what, if any, profit should be shared with local
>>> chapters who host OWASP conferences.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>> Sent from my wireless device
>>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Richard Greenberg <
>>> richard.greenberg at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> As both an LA Chapter Board Member and GCC member, I am well positioned
>>> (I'd better be) to weigh in on this passionate discussion. I have not yet
>>> read a false statement from anyone, which means we are all speaking at a
>>> high level. Of course, there must be some resolution to this hot issue, so
>>> here are my thoughts.
>>>
>>> Any local chapter that takes on the responsibility for a local hosting of
>>> a Global AppSec conference does so with the understanding that they are the
>>> ones who are in charge and must bear the responsibility for the success or
>>> failure of the conference, both in terms of content and financially. We in
>>> SoCal spent countless hours on all the conference planning tasks, from venue
>>> issues to reception planning, from spreading the word for and vetting
>>> speakers to getting sponsorships (and I personally got a number of these).
>>> We are not paid OWASP employees, but of course all have other jobs, that we
>>> put in much more than a 40 hour work week to be successful. Yet we still all
>>> found the time to indeed make the conference a success. Why did we do this?
>>> No, it was never directly about the money. Yes, it involved the money, but
>>> solely to build the LA Chapter. LA is the largest megalopolis in the
>>> country, yet its participation at OWASP meetings is not proportional to
>>> this. We are using AppSec as a beacon to light the way for the development
>>> and appsec community to come into the OWASP fold. Word of mouth is
>>> important, but much of the efforts require cold hard cash, the kind that was
>>> brought in from AppSec. Los Angeles is often looked at as a driving force in
>>> initiatives for the rest of the country, and we are setting our goals
>>> appropriately. Look at the success New York OWASP has been having. LA needs
>>> to be at that level!
>>>
>>> Stepping up a level, any local chapter that takes on the hosting
>>> responsibility should receive the funding it needs for it's initiatives,
>>> provided it has generated that income for both OWASP and the chapter itself.
>>> It should not be the role of OWASP to dictate what the chapter must do with
>>> its money, unless there is a clear misuse or poorly chosen direction. We
>>> have highly motivated , intelligent, and resourceful Chapter Leaders that
>>> have that responsibility. Let's remember not to covet others riches, but to
>>> respect the capacity of each Chapter to build and spread the OWASP concepts
>>> to as many people/companies as possible.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Kate Hartmann <<kate.hartmann at owasp.org>
>>> kate.hartmann at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tin, I am really not picking on you, individually, but need to really
>>>> speak up on this subject since it is a very critical one for the foundation
>>>> as an organization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tin, please be careful when you bring in phrases like, “this is the core
>>>> of the matter here.”  Really, I disagree with that statement.  The idea is
>>>> not that simple – guilt.
>>>>
>>>> We are working on a global solutions to the chapter funding.  Not every
>>>> chapter can host an AppSec and the regional events do not bring in that much
>>>> revenue.  We need to think about the message we send to EVERYONE.
>>>>
>>>> Hosting an AppSec or any conference should really not be about the
>>>> money.  In fact, until very recently, the local chapter did not receive ANY
>>>> split and we still had lots of chapters asking to host the conference.  In
>>>> 2008, as a result of the first Summit, the Membership model was modified to
>>>> provide local chapter’s a 40% share of incoming membership fees.  This means
>>>> that a corporate supporter attached to a local chapter would generate $2K.
>>>> There are many chapters who have used this “seed money” to drive membership,
>>>> participation, and bring in additional chapter revenue through corporate
>>>> supporters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking  at the first paragraph about OWASP on the website, at the
>>>> mission of OWASP, it reads:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) is a 501c3
>>>> not-for-profit worldwide charitable organization focused on improving the
>>>> security of application software. Our mission is to make application
>>>> security visible, so that people and organizations can make informed
>>>> decisions about true application security risks. Everyone is free to
>>>> participate in OWASP and all of our materials are available under a free and
>>>> open software license. “
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is MY OPINION based on what I have seen Globally, energy spent on
>>>> Membership is more financially rewarding in the long term, and, hour for
>>>> hour, provides a greater return on investment.  The profits for an AppSec
>>>> conference are really the result of turning the membership relationships
>>>> into sponsorships.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tin, really, I challenge you to look at the sponsorship revenue from
>>>> AppSec US and point to the *local* companies that stepped up to sponsor
>>>> the event.  Most of them are Corporate sponsors at the foundation level that
>>>> I was able to connect with to generate sponsorship for the event.
>>>> Additionally, it was the mailing lists created by the foundation and the
>>>> blasts that generated a good portion of the attendance for the conference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The conferences committee is debating an opportunity to essentially
>>>> reward the local chapter for their investment in time with the equivalent of
>>>> 2 or 3 corporate membership splits as funds to continue the efforts in that
>>>> region.  One of the proposals on the table is to use the remaining split of
>>>> the profits to assist other, smaller, newer chapters who otherwise would not
>>>> have the funds to secure a venue, print flyers, bring in speakers, or find
>>>> other ways to promote OWASP.
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry if it seem like I’m being harsh on you.  I see OWASP from the
>>>> center and therefore very often try to find a compromise that benefits the
>>>> entire organization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kate Hartmann
>>>>
>>>> Operations Director
>>>>
>>>> 301-275-9403
>>>>
>>>> www.owasp.org
>>>>
>>>> Skype:  Kate.hartmann1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* <global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:<global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *Tin
>>>> Zaw
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:47 PM
>>>> *To:* Mark Bristow
>>>> *Cc:* <global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org; Eoin; Lucas Ferreira;
>>>> <Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org;
>>>> global_conference_committee
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Global_conference_committee] [Global_chapter_committee]
>>>> [Global_membership_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark, you do not need to snip anything. I said it on the record and I
>>>> stand by it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I agree, OWASP's needs come first, hence 75% of the proceeds, and
>>>> the local chapter's needs come second, hence 25% of the proceeds. In this
>>>> case, the local chapters over-fund OWASP, not the other way around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After such split, with OWASP being first, local chapters should have
>>>> certain freedom, within OWASP guidelines, on how they allocate their funds.
>>>> They should not feel guilty for it. In case it is not noticed, this is the
>>>> core of the matter here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned for the Summit cost, I am willing to negotiate, and I
>>>> believe Kate and Dinis have made some good arguments on why spending chapter
>>>> funds for the Summit is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> We could go a long way if we all collaborate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mark Bristow <<mark.bristow at owasp.org>
>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This to me is a great example of why we should not over-fund
>>>> chapters....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some context, this chapter is proposing that, even tho they have ample
>>>> funds to send some of their leaders to the summit, that they split the cost
>>>> 50/50 with the foundation even after Tom's call for "donations" to the
>>>> summit fund from local chapter funds.  Clearly the summit is a huge priority
>>>> for OWASP, however in the isolation of this chapter, it's not as important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> As for local chapter funds, I have not been informed of, nor do I
>>>> subscribe to the notion that funds are to be used for next calendar year.
>>>> Our plans for chapter funds are for 2011 and beyond, with recognition that
>>>> we will not be hosting AppSec -- and enjoy its proceeds -- anytime soon. Our
>>>> current plans include more local outreach, support for local university
>>>> chapters, and potential rental expenses for chapter meetings or
>>>> mini-conferences when we outgrow space. In addition, I plan to leave the
>>>> chapter in a better financial shape when I step down one day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope my points are understandable. I also understand that OWASP plans
>>>> to bring as many people as possible, and if and when it comes down to
>>>> financial necessity, I am willing to negotiate other options.
>>>>
>>>> </snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I've snipped out the bits that identify the chapter, the message
>>>> is almost perfectly intact.  It's pretty clear to me that the foundation
>>>> could really use some of these funds currently, however the chapter
>>>> disagrees and therefore we have to hunt for funds elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree it's a TON of work to organize a conference, I've done it
>>>> directly 2 years in a row.  But the motivation for doing so should not be a
>>>> financial one and the needs of the foundation should always come first,
>>>> because in the end, it was an OWASP event, not a chapter one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, dinis cruz < <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>
>>>> dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Samy tour is a great example of what happens when you remove from
>>>> the Chapters the responsibility to make the initial decision (and some of
>>>> the financial cost).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John's email below is spot on, when I talk about 'financial paralysis'
>>>> and the inability from our chapter leaders to spend (or ask) for money, that
>>>> is exactly what I'm talking about. If (in the curent model) John W. doesn't
>>>> feel confortable in asking for money, then who is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our current OWASP culture, doesn't promote a 'spending proactivity' of
>>>> our projects and chapter leaders. In fact, it is not even enough to say
>>>> *'here is money, we trust you, go and spend it'* (as we see with the
>>>> 30k allocated to Projects, Committees and Chapters which has barely been
>>>> used).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is a reflection of the normal non-OWASP world where
>>>> there are always very strong controls on the use of financial resources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add to that a *"I don't need the headache of having to justify why I
>>>> need the money"* to a *"If I'm doing this for OWASP and I have the
>>>> track record, why should I even have to justify it"* to a *"I really
>>>> like OWASP and don't want to spend the resources badly"*  to a *"What
>>>> are the rules for engagement if it doesn't work out as well as I would like
>>>> it to?"* you have a perfect storm for inaction
>>>>
>>>> Dinis Cruz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 December 2010 12:21, John Wilander < <john.wilander at owasp.org>
>>>> john.wilander at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gosh, some heavy emailing going on here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a short one to answer Mark's request for examples of chapters being
>>>> denies funding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is not a case of chapters asking for money and being
>>>> denied. No such examples to my knowledge. I think the case is "we have no
>>>> money so we don't do X and Y". Chapters don't feel empowered or comfortable
>>>> to write an email to Mark or Kate and ask for $. Instead they strive in
>>>> mediocracy and skip doing better events.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In concrete terms ... Samy Kamkar's talks at several European chapters
>>>> were a huge success. But they were *not* initiated by empowered
>>>> chapters. It was a *central* OWASP initiative with a *central* funding
>>>> solution in place. Now OWASP Sweden wants to pursue this path and invite
>>>> Mario Heiderich, Gareth Heyes, Dinis Cruz etc. Great! But have we written an
>>>> email to Mark yet? No. Not even I, being a member of the GCC, feel
>>>> comfortable asking for the foundation's money to run a local event.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case OWASP Sweden actually has money. Why? Because we got a
>>>> share of the revenue from OWASP AppSec in Stockholm. So we're going to fly
>>>> Mario Heiderich in and build upon the success with Samy. We already have
>>>> more than 500 members and we asked them what we should use the chapter's
>>>> money for. Answer: More international experts giving talks and tutorials.
>>>> This is what the chapter members want.
>>>>
>>>> (Of course we will try to find sponsors to lower the chapter's costs and
>>>> we will try to cooperate with OWASP Finland and Norway so we can share
>>>> travel costs.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Regards, John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/12/16 L. Gustavo C. Barbato < <lgbarbato at owasp.org>
>>>> lgbarbato at owasp.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also defend the idea of collaboration between chapters in order to
>>>> achieve great conferences results - when I say collaboration I do mean
>>>> collaborate <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collaborate> (*to
>>>> work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work*), in other
>>>> words, without having profits in mind.
>>>>
>>>> However, aiming to compensate the collaboration on conferences and have
>>>> a fair support of OWASP, I do defend the idea of having conferences in
>>>> different cities yearly according to local chapters locations. Nevertheless,
>>>> we can't forget the hard work necessary of local chapters to host a
>>>> conference -- I know that because after the AppSec Brazil 2010 (last month),
>>>> I don't stop thinking and working on AppSec 2011 -- it's already being
>>>> time-consuming.
>>>>
>>>> L. *Gustavo* C. *Barbato*, Ph.D.
>>>> Chapter Leader, OWASP Porto Alegre / *Brazil*
>>>> Global Chapter Committee Member
>>>> <http://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Gustavo_Barbato>
>>>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Gustavo_Barbato
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/15/2010 12:29 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Comments forwarded on Lucas's behalf (he's on vacation and can't send as
>>>> the right user.....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======
>>>>
>>>> I don't like the idea of having one chapter getting so more funds then
>>>> others. For AppSec Brasil, we will have people from multiple chapters
>>>> involved and it would not be nice to have one chapter getting all the
>>>> money. Having to decide a split amongst chapters would need energy
>>>> that could be better used somewhere else.
>>>>
>>>> In principle, I don't like the idea of having chapters "fighting" for
>>>> money, and we may have this in the future if the chapter split is too
>>>> high. I'm afraid collaboration may decrease in the long run. On the
>>>> oher hand, I'd like to see a solution that increases the involvement
>>>> of chapter leader in our conferences, specially to have people from
>>>> different chpaters to collaborate in conference teams.
>>>>
>>>> I think that having many chapters with some money is better than
>>>> having a few chapters with a lot of money. I think we should invest
>>>> more in getting more active chapters than making a few chapters more
>>>> active.
>>>>
>>>> The fund idea seams a good solution to me.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Lucas
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Neil Matatall < <neil at owasp.org>
>>>> neil at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well this thread has become epic and unfortunately I haven't been able
>>>> to catch all of the ideas.  I really hope I can catch up, but why
>>>> don't we have a conference call or discuss this at the summit (those
>>>> not in attendance will have to be accommodated somehow)?
>>>>
>>>> Times like these make me wish my phone has an "threaded" email view :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jason Li <[email protected]<http://owasp.org>
>>>> owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> > So taking Michael's suggestion of starting fresh, I've cleared the
>>>> long
>>>> > quote of the thread.
>>>> > As an observer to the thread, I'm going to capture what I think has
>>>> been
>>>> > mentioned so far on the thread.
>>>> >
>>>> > And then I'll weigh in with my humble opinion, keeping in mind that I
>>>> am not
>>>> > involved in the Conferences Committee, Membership Committee, Chapter
>>>> > Committee, or the Board (in other words, I'm a nobody in this
>>>> conversation
>>>> > :)).
>>>> > ----
>>>> > Summary of Problem:
>>>> > Where does Conference revenue go?
>>>> > Points of Concern:
>>>> > 1) Conferences are put on with the assistance of local chapters and
>>>> > coordination/support from the OWASP mothership
>>>> > 2) We want a way to reward local chapters for their help with
>>>> > running/coordinating a conference
>>>> > 3) We want conference attendees the option to get OWASP Memberships
>>>> bundled
>>>> > in with the conference
>>>> > 4) Chapters need money to do things
>>>> > -------
>>>> > Now with that out of the way, my personal thoughts:
>>>> > #4 is completely independent of Conference revenue. There are lots of
>>>> other
>>>> > OWASP sectors that also need money to do things (Projects and Summits
>>>> for
>>>> > example). If there is a need for Chapters to do something, then this
>>>> should
>>>> > be allocated out of the main OWASP mothership budget and not out of
>>>> > Conference revenue.
>>>> > In my view, conference revenue should go to one of three places:
>>>> > 1) OWASP Mothership fund (where the Board can then re-allocate as
>>>> needed to
>>>> > support Chapters or other initiatives as appropriate)
>>>> > 2) Local Chapter(s) supporting the conference (in order to recognize
>>>> their
>>>> > support)
>>>> > 3) Conferences fund managed by the Conferences Committee
>>>> > I'm not even sure if #3 is really necessary as that could also fall
>>>> under
>>>> > #1.
>>>> > The only real debate is what proportion of the revenue should go into
>>>> which
>>>> > bucket. That's where I believe this debate originally started. All
>>>> this
>>>> > other talk about chapter needs and a chapter fund has clouded the
>>>> > discussion.
>>>> > -Jason
>>>>
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>> > <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>> >
>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>> <mark.bristow at owasp.org>mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>
>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - <http://is.gd/5MTvF>
>>>> http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - <http://is.gd/5MTwu>http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - <https://www.appsecdc.org>
>>>> https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>>>>
>>>>  <Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee>https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>> <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John Wilander, <https://twitter.com/johnwilander>
>>>> https://twitter.com/johnwilander
>>>> Chapter co-leader OWASP Sweden, <http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com>
>>>> http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>> Co-organizer Global Summit, <http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011>
>>>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011
>>>>
>>>> Conf Comm, <http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee>
>>>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>> <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>> <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>> <mark.bristow at owasp.org>mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>
>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - <http://is.gd/5MTvF>
>>>> http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - <http://is.gd/5MTwu>http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - <https://www.appsecdc.org>
>>>> https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>>>> <Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_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>
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>>  <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Greenberg, CISSP
>>> Board of Directors, OWASP Los Angeles, <http://www.appsecusa.org/>
>>> www.owaspla.org
>>> Board of Directors, ISSA Los Angeles, <http://www.appsecusa.org/>
>>> www.issa-la.org
>>> OWASP Global Conference Committee
>>> LinkedIn:  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardagreenberg>
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardagreenberg
>>>                                                    <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>
>>> <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>
>>> <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>       <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Greenberg, CISSP
>> Board of Directors, OWASP Los Angeles, www.owaspla.org<http://www.appsecusa.org/>
>> Board of Directors, ISSA Los Angeles, www.issa-la.org<http://www.appsecusa.org/>
>> OWASP Global Conference Committee
>> LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardagreenberg
>>                                                    <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_>
>> <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_>
>> <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_>       <#12d0edb56dcec4d1_12d0ed7976eced51_>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
John Wilander, https://twitter.com/johnwilander
Chapter co-leader OWASP Sweden, http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com
<http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com>Co-organizer Global Summit,
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011
<http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011>Conf Comm,
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20101222/32c8f024/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list