[Global_chapter_committee] [Committees-chairs] [Global_conference_committee] [owasp-board] Re: 2012 Speaker Agreement Update
tomb at owasp.org
Mon Jun 25 11:52:34 UTC 2012
Did this thread result in a updated speaker agreement or just a discussion
Conferences / Chapters committee owns this - please advise of your
understanding and URL to current agreement
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> Personally, I think we need to enforce, strictly, only 2 points on
> 1) All presentations must be creative commons.
> 2) No vendor pitches.
> Number 1 is easy to enforce. Number 2 is very difficult to enforce.
> WhiteHat Security is very kindly sponsoring me to fly all over the
> country/world to give vendor-neutral secure-coding creative-commons talks.
> They asked me, very politely, to brand my PowerPoints as WhiteHat Security. At
> first, I was really against this. But a few things changed my mind today.
> 1) WhiteHat is paying my salary, which helps support my ability to deliver
> these talks
> 2) I would not be able to do this if it was not for their support giving
> me massive chunks of time to do this
> 3) WhiteHat is also a OWASP corporate sponsor and supports various OWASP
> 4) They are not trying to control ANY of my content; they are even
> helping me clean up my creative-commons slide decks.
> My integrity matters to me. But I am starting to think that a company who
> supports me giving a whole lot of vendor-neutral creative-commons secure
> coding talks deserves some recognition.
> Thoughts, community? Am I off base here?
> Jim Manico
> (808) 652-3805
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Thomas Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
> We want to make a agreement that is acceptable to the goals and mission of
> the association in raising application security.
> We don't want to have a paper-tiger agreement that is disregarded as to
> complex and not enforced do we?
> Revise and alert the speakers for AppSecDC AppSecUSA EMEA, LATAM etc etc..
> If OWASP can't do this with our employees and volunteers then call it what
> Seba noted best practice.
> Content is content it's either valuable or it's not, I personally don't
> care about a logo -- in many cases they paid the airfare, lodging and
> salary of the speaker (this includes Government and other submitters) hence
> if the preso sucks... It still sucks.
> The agreement is what I am changeling and asking the committees chapters
> and conferences trot a health check - and the rest of the leaders for there
> input as its their organization and they speak for the 160 chapters and
> running conferences.
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> The speaker agreement is already very clear on the topic of presentation
> " Speakers are encouraged to include their contact information when
> introducing themselves, but may NOT include their logo on any visual and
> handout materials. Speakers are to avoid any appearance of commercialism in
> their session and presentations are to be of a technical or solutions
> At least 50% of all speakers I have seen violate this, including board
> The question is, do we want to enforce this policy (from Nov 2011)?
> - Jim
> A general remark from my side: only use the speaker agreement when in
> We use this agreement very pragmatically in Belgium and have only pointed
> to it upfront to speakers when we thought a certain speaker/topic could
> become a commercial talk.
> Otherwise: minimize the red tape :-)
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Teresa Stevens <
> teresa-ann-stevens at comcast.net> wrote:
>> I agree with Josh. Thanks,
>> Teresa Stevens, CISSP, MSIA, PMMC
>> Information Security Specialist – Team Leader
>> San Francisco Bay Area
>> 510-842-8868 (home), 510-872-2187 (cell)
>> From: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:13:22 -0500
>> To: Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
>> Cc: "owasp-board at owasp.org" <owasp-board at owasp.org>, "
>> committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org" <committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org>,
>> global_conference_committee <global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>,
>> global_chapter_committee Committee <
>> global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee]
>> [owasp-board] Re: [Committees-chairs] 2012 Speaker Agreement Update
>> I agree with what Jason said. I see no reason why a person should not
>> be able to include a company logo in a slide deck regardless of whether
>> they are a corporate member or not. My $0.02:
>> * If the event has a presentation template, then corporate logos should
>> be limited to only the "About Me" page of the presentation.
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>wrote:
>>> I think these are reasonable changes except the no-logo on the "about
>>> me" slide. I think that's fine if we put a boundry on the size. The GCC
>>> is in the final process of selecting a new presentation template, so this
>>> will be easy to add.
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> I am happy with vendor logo as long as content isn't a vendor pitch
>>>> or vendor bespoke (ip) and covers off an issue which is in the open body
>>>> of knowledge.
>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>> BCC Risk Advisory
>>>> Owasp Global Board
>>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>> On 27 Mar 2012, at 16:13, Jason Li <jason.li at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> Agreed on the use of the template.
>>>> What's the purpose of the restriction on the company logo?
>>>> Is it an attempt to spur corporate membership? Is it meant to remove
>>>> the "vendor"-ness of a talk?
>>>> If the former, I think it actually comes across as off-putting and
>>>> might have the opposite effect... If the latter, then the inclusion of the
>>>> company logo if and only if they are an OWASP supporter seems overly
>>>> restrictive IMHO in comparison to the goal.
>>>> What about updating the template to include a specific place and
>>>> limited small size for a logo and mandating the use of the template? That
>>>> would limit how much a presenter could plaster their logo across a
>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>> Today OWASP utilizes a Speaker Agreement that outlines the rules for
>>>>> compensation of speakers, required templates, audio/visual, vulnerabilities
>>>>> disclosure and a laundry list of other terms.
>>>>> The Document: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Speaker_Agreement
>>>>> With the upcoming long list of AppSec<Regional>, AppSec<Global> and
>>>>> chapter events globally happening weekly enforcement of this policy or
>>>>> event policing of this policy is difficult however the spirit of the
>>>>> speaker agreement in keeping OWASP pure to technical,
> Committees-chairs mailing list
> Committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Global_chapter_committee