[Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board] Results of Feb GCC Action items from the board
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
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.
> 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.).
>> 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:
>> 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
>> Putting on my chapters committee hat:
>> I don't have a problem with the conferences committee putting in
>> governance over the global and regional events, but when chapters
>> organize local events that needs to be overseen by the chapters
>> 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
>> > conference. While on-site the GCC representative will provide
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Global_chapter_committee