[Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board] Results of Feb GCC Action items from the board

Matthew Chalmers matthew.chalmers at owasp.org
Thu Feb 17 16:15:32 EST 2011


I think our two committees (the GCC and the GCC--but not the GCC, just so
there's no confusion) need to have a joint conference call.

Based on the comments from the around 20 participants in the Global Chapters
Committee working sessions at the Summit, the caps are a major source of
contention. No one was opposed to a percentage of proceeds going to the
Foundation for using the OWASP brand, or commensurate with the Foundation's
assistance (financial or otherwise), however, it didn't make sense why the
local chapters' split is capped--for a local event in particular. The Global
Conferences Committee's own guidance states, "significant OWASP Foundation
support will not be available for these events." It would seem fair for the
Foundation's cut to start with a base percentage just for using the brand
name, then go up depending on how much involvement the committee has in
planning/organizing/executing, which could be case by case. For a
national/global event, the committee may be doing most of the work and just
using a local chapter for grunt work on the ground because they're there
near the venue; but for a local event the committee may do nothing other
than facilitate the board signing checks/contracts.

While the Chapters Committee hasn't had an official discussion or vote on
this issue, it is my belief that as representatives of the chapters and
their leadership we cannot support your committee's revenue splitting model
as presented below. At the very least, you need to provide your methodology
for determining these numbers so perhaps we can understand them better. They
seem very arbitrary. It would make sense if it is based on the relative
amount of work (local people compared to the committee).

I also noticed on your page at
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conference_Committee_Policies it
states, "Training revenue will be split 60/40 (OWASP/Training Provider)."
What does this mean and how does it relate to the splits & caps below?

As for my personal opinion, it seems like there should be more objective and
concrete criteria to determine whether an event is local or regional if the
proceeds split differs. Just because a local event is large, doesn't
necessarily mean it should be considered regional and have less of the
proceeds go to the local chapters. And the split should probably be based on
amount of work done by all parties and possibly different for each event. Or
perhaps in some part based on the size of the chapter. A chapter of 100
people arguably needs more financial resources to facilitate meetings while
a chapter of 10 needs less--but they may both be run by a single person.

I'm not a CMP (http://www.conventionindustry.org/CMP/CMPProgram.aspx) or
anything like that so I've tried to be reserved in weighing in here. But
just like with married couples, money will always be one of the biggest
issues we deal with as an organization, especially as long as there's not
one central 'dictator' setting the rules (i.e. chapters overlaps with
conferences overlaps with education, etc.).

-chalmers

P.S. I left owasp-board at lists.owasp.org on the cc list even though I know my
email won't go through...


On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Before approving this, Is suggest discussing the profit cap with the
> chapters committee (also putting the global chapters committee in the
> recipient list).
> There is some bad blood with  chapters that organized an event and now
> see their 'profit' disappear in the general conferences bucket.
> In the end this is all foundation budget, but perception is very important.
>
> Putting on my chapters committee hat:
> I don't have a problem with the conferences committee putting in place
> governance over the global and regional events, but when chapters
> organize local events that needs to be overseen by the chapters
> committee
>
> --Seba
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> > OWASP Board,
> >
> > As a result of our meeting during the summit, you had asked us to make
> final
> > resolutions on a few items.
> >
> > Chapter Profit Sharing Model
> > Now, with a greater understanding that budgetary and inter-committee
> items
> > should be run through the board for concurrence here is the plan as
> approved
> > by the GCC for an event profit sharing model.  It's important to note
> that
> > currently there is NO official model (despite what you may have heard) at
> > least in the committee's view.  Also as discussed, much debate that is
> > better surmised in a teleconference went into this conclusion, should you
> > require it, I will happily work with you all to set up a time.  We look
> > forward to your vote on this subject.
> >
> >> Local host chapters will share in OWASP event profits under the
> following
> >> schedule. In the case of multiple host chapters, the host chapters will
> be
> >> responsible for determining the division before the event.
> >>
> >> Global AppSec Conference - 25% of event profits with a $5,000 USD cap
> >> ($10,000 for multi-chapter events)
> >> Regional/Theme Events - 30% of event profits with a $4,000 USD cap
> >> Local Events - 50% of profits with a $3000 USD cap
> >
> > GCC Representative Roles and Responsibilities at Events
> > The GCC will now send a representative to all Global AppSec Events and to
> > other regional events as budget allows.  This member of the GCC will be
> > identified early and assigned to liaise with the conference planners and
> > provide a single point of contact for interfacing with the committee.
> They
> > will also work with Dave to go through "training" for signature authority
> on
> > contracts less than or equal to $15,000 USD in the scope of the assigned
> > conference.  While on-site the GCC representative will provide
> logistical,
> > contracting and other on-site support as well as report back to the
> > committee in the following areas (from the GCC 2011 Comprehensive plan):
> >
> > GCC member shall:
> >
> > interface with the local planning committee at least 1 month before trip
> > (attend planning call)
> > Interact with planners/attendees while at conference
> > Interact with Sponsors
> > Sign conference contracts under $15,000 (once approved)
> >
> > At the next GCC meeting the traveling member will be expected to provide
> an
> > post trip report covering
> >
> > Assessment of facility
> > Event Marketing Strategy
> > Examination of Event Budget
> > Estimation of Speaker Quality
> > Sponsor engagement/cost-effectiveness & feedback
> > Any notable comments from planners/attendees
> > Any unique outstanding elements
> > Any issues
> >
> > GCC Representative Funding
> > The board had asked the GCC to discuss the funding mechanism for GCC
> > representation at events (GCC budget or against individual conferences).
> > This was discussed and voted upon at the Feb GCC meeting and the
> committee
> > decided that it would be best to manage these funds out of a GCC travel
> > budget for supporting events.  The GCC felt that, as at the end of the
> day
> > it's all the foundation's money, the benefits of rolling this travel
> under
> > the conference budget (therefore showing more "expenses" to their budget,
> > allegedly encouraging them to earn more money to break "even") did not
> > outweigh the "perceived" costs of offering conferences direct on-site
> > support and then "charging" them for it.  As the travel costs are likely
> to
> > have a small impact on a Global AppSec Budget (approx $2000/trip) it's
> not
> > likely going to impact the bottom line of the conference and would not
> > likely be the sole motivating factor for planners to get additional
> > sponsorship income.  The potential soft costs to the ability of the GCC
> to
> > conduct it's oversight role may be significantly impacted by making the
> > planners pay a "tax" that is wholly  internal to the organizations
> > accounting and has no real allocation.  Additionally, in the cases where
> a
> > conference planner said "thanks but no thanks" to a GCC rep at their
> > conference, the larger goals of better contract management, event
> feedback
> > and assessments would not be achieved.  In short, the GCC recommends to
> the
> > board that this funding stream be placed under the GCC budget as
> originally
> > requested in the amount of $10,000.
> >
> > In addition to these items, I just wanted to make you all aware that we
> are
> > working on making some changes to the OWASP conference sponsorship model
> to
> > allow for "Global" sponsors.  We feel this will increase the net profits
> > from conferences but as it is a budgetary item, the GCC will pass a draft
> to
> > the board for consideration.
> >
> > Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Mark
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-board mailing list
> > Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20110217/4376b4da/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list