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

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Wed Dec 22 11:12:57 EST 2010


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
>>                                                    <#12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>
>> <#12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>
>> <#12d0ed7976eced51_12d0eb08f1a83eb4_>       <#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
>                                                     <#12d0ed7976eced51_>
> <#12d0ed7976eced51_>             <#12d0ed7976eced51_>       <#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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20101222/7100120a/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list