[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_membership_committee] [Global_conference_committee] membership during registration

Matthew Chalmers matthew.chalmers at owasp.org
Wed May 18 14:22:24 EDT 2011

I (and I would have to assume many of us) have been involved with many other
organizations that have chapters, and the most common way I've seen it
handled is for there not to be a 'split' but a global organization
membership fee plus a required chapter membership fee, and the chapters, to
some extent, set their fee. If a new member doesn't want to affiliate with a
chapter or there isn't a chapter that makes sense for them (due to location,
etc.), they are an 'at-large' member and the fee for that is equal to or
higher than the highest chapter fee and it goes to either the global
organization or all the chapters (collectively, all at-large member fees--a
single member's fee may not be able to be split amongst all chapters
obviously). What do you think?

Just like with married couples, our finances are always going to be the
biggest source of contention. I still think our standard process should be
for new or newly documented/harmonized 'policy' to be set at the lowest
possible level and vetoed by the board rather than approved. (I.e.
committees should be empowered to do what they think is right when
they--their members--can agree by consensus or vote when either it's clearly
in their AoR or they have technical control. For example, our Conferences
Committee has been trying to set a policy for a while for profit sharing
between host chapters and global OWASP. Global Conferences have asked for
input but it should only be considered input--not power/authority to
overrule or filibuster. If after policy is set there is disagreement outside
the policy-setting committee/body, the disagreeing party should appeal to
the board to discuss and veto if warranted. If the board either doesn't
think it needs to be discussed or discusses and ends up in favor of no
change, then there's no change. The disagreeing party can appeal to the
plenary (e.g. owasp-leaders) to try to rally support and vocalize such to
the committee and/or board for reconsideration. It would then be incumbent
for the board to decide whether they want to risk not getting re-elected
because a sufficient portion of the voting members disagree with their

Unfortunately we do have a lot of overlap between committees and other
bodies such as, apparently, individual conferences/events, since Tom said
below "we conducted a membership raffle." To an individual, especially
someone new to OWASP and/or who has just paid out of their own pocket for
membership, this may be the chapters committee's fault, the membership
committee's fault, the conference committee's fault, the conference/event
organizer or host chapter fault, etc. Likewise in the eyes of the person(s)
running the raffle who did not have the information about this individual
being a part of a certain chapter.

I hope someone closer to that specific situation has a suggestion for
keeping it from happening again but I certainly don't see accountability
being clear here.


On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:

> Home chapter is home chapter separate from conference. We actually had a
> complaint last week from a member that became one at appsec dc and was not
> associated to the local chapter when we conducted a membership raffle.  So
> in order to measure chapters properly we need to track individuals to home
> chapters.  They should be able to transfer there association if they like as
> well (like they move change jobs etc...).  The membership hotline = the
> contact us form on the Owasp website top right
> On May 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM, "Stevens, Teresa" <ExSi at pge.com> wrote:
> I agree with following the standard membership policy. Thanks, --Teresa
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* global_chapter_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
> global_chapter_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *dan
> cornell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:45 AM
> *To:* Mark Bristow
> *Cc:* global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org; dan cornell;
> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org; kelly.santalucia at owasp.org;
> Kate Hartmann; global_conference_committee; Alison McNamee
> *Subject:* Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_membership_committee]
> [Global_conference_committee] membership during registration
>  I would tend to agree that we follow the standard membership policy of
> giving 40% to the originating chapter.  It is an incentive for the chapter
> folks to promote attendance at events.
>  Thanks,
>  Dan
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Bristow < <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
> mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>> (looping in chapters and membership)
>> Kate,
>> The Conferences Committee has no offical policy on this.  I was told that
>> this went to the conference previously due to an undue burden on accounting
>> resources.
>> I'm of the opinion that it should follow the standard membership committee
>> policy (as it's sort of separate activity from the conference). In general
>> tho I don't really think this is our AoR but we can discuss if there has
>> been a change in the operational requiremetns.
>> -Mark
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Josh Sokol < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> IMHO, this is a decision that should be left up to the conference
>>> planners.  If they are willing to take the time to separate the attendees
>>> into their respective chapters, then I think that due credit should be given
>>> to ensure that they get the 60/40 membership split.  If they are unwilling
>>> to take the time to do that, then it should just get rolled into the
>>> conference budget.  For what it's worth, "take the time" is basically just a
>>> matter of setting up a custom field in RegOnline before you start accepting
>>> registrations.  That field exists for LASCON 2011 and our intent is to pass
>>> the membership money back along to the chapter the member came from.  This
>>> incentive helps encourage the other OWASP chapters in Texas to participate
>>> in LASCON.
>>> ~josh
>>>   On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Kate Hartmann <<kate.hartmann at owasp.org>
>>> kate.hartmann at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>    Group, this has come up in the past for discussion, but I’m not
>>>> aware that there was ever a final answer (other matters took priority)…
>>>> When an attendee becomes a member during the registration process for an
>>>> event, does their 40% split apply to the event budget as income or to the
>>>> local chapter a membership split.  Historically, this amount has applied to
>>>> the conference budget, but I want to make sure we are continuing to do what
>>>> we are supposed to be doing from an operational perspective.
>>>> If the “policy” is to apply the split back to the local chapter, are we
>>>> giving attendees the opportunity to choose their own local chapter instead
>>>> of the host chapter?
>>>> I need to make sure we get this set up correctly in all of our events.
>>>> Kate Hartmann
>>>> Operations Director
>>>> 301-275-9403
>>>> <http://www.owasp.org/>www.owasp.org
>>>> Skype:  Kate.hartmann1
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>>  <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>  <Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee>
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>> --
>> Mark Bristow
>> (703) 596-5175
>>  <mark.bristow at owasp.org>mark.bristow at owasp.org
>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair -  <http://is.gd/5MTvF>
>> http://is.gd/5MTvF
>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - <http://is.gd/5MTwu>http://is.gd/5MTwu
>> AppSec DC Organizer - <https://www.appsecdc.org>https://www.appsecdc.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Global_membership_committee mailing list
>>  <Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_membership_committee>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_membership_committee
>  _______________________________________________
> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110518/73dcd752/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list