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

Ralph Durkee ralph.durkee at owasp.org
Fri Feb 18 16:03:17 EST 2011

Maybe it would be better to try it for 6 months just for the Global
Conferences, and continue to work out the discussion on regional and
chapter conferences. 

-- Ralph

On 2/17/2011 5:20 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:
> 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.
> -Mark
> Sent from my wireless device
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Matthew Chalmers
> <matthew.chalmers at owasp.org <mailto: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
>> <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/20110218/ce27eb4b/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list