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

Matthew Chalmers matthew.chalmers at owasp.org
Wed May 18 14:28:12 EDT 2011


Oh and to clarify, I've said before that I think everything at OWASP is a
project, including chapters, events, etc., and so by 'chapter' membership
below what I mean is 'project'. So anyone who's willing to pay OWASP money
for membership should be able to 'affiliate' with any project--code project,
doc project, chapter, committee, event, etc. Anything in OWASP that has a
budget or 'account' should be fair game--and they should be able to choose
more than one. For some there may be tangible benefits (e.g. a vote in a
chapter? that's up to each chapter) and for others it might just be a warm
fuzzy fealing about helping.

--matt


On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Chalmers <
matthew.chalmers at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
> view.)
>
> 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.
>
> --matt
>
>
> 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/20110518/0fbcce35/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list