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

Thu Feb 17 17:18:19 EST 2011

I'm good with doing a conference call at some point, but I think it
would be helpful to continue this conversation via email for a bit,
you've made some really thoughtful points that should be considered, and
maybe we can think this through a little better if we work on it in this
forum. 

-- Ralph Durkee

On 2/17/2011 4:15 PM, Matthew Chalmers wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%28703%29%20596-5175>
>     > mark.bristow at owasp.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/a3fcae11/attachment-0001.html 