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

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Thu Feb 17 17:20:16 EST 2011

I'm about to get on a plane and be out of comma for a few days so I'll try and be brief (apologies for terseness in advance)

It's important to remember that before the GCC policy there was NO profit sharing at all.  So anything is better than nothing IMO.

If the board decides that local events should be run by the chapters committee that's fine and conferences will certainly respect that.  I however don't think this should be the case.

Conferences has debated this subject ad-nausseum.  I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the policy but no one is vehemently against it.  That's hard compromise working.

The caps are important.  Remember some events make 100,000 even a 10% share is a mighty one.

There was a version with drastically reduced % and no caps that was part of the vote.

One important consideration of a no-cap system is that some chapters may become "rich" and some poor.  This inequity is counter to OWASP culture and could be dangerous.

If chapter budgets start approaching high 5 or 6 digits, this is money the foundation can't use for operations, additional staff, SoC and strategic initiatives.

Local events almost never make money.  They are almost always free and the foundation is the one who covers the cost.  This is why the low cap as local events on the whole will always be a net expenditure for the foundation.

Local events get financial backing and the "OWASP" brand.  This is not insignificant.  Yes they get less central support but still get all of the systems (such as reg and advertising) paid for with central $.

I gotta go board, but I assure you all of this was discussed to excess during GCC debate.  We also did loop in chapters mailing list however there was no response.

I suggest we leave the policy in place for at least 6 months.  Get some real data about how well it works.  And re-evaluate at that point.


Sent from my wireless device

On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Matthew Chalmers <matthew.chalmers at owasp.org> 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 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/f21b3315/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list