[Global_conference_committee] [Global_membership_committee] Honorary Memberships - Vote Scheduled for 12/21 @ Membership Meeting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Sun Dec 12 19:33:36 EST 2010


The point is't to motivate people to contribute, it's to recognize people
who do and provide some metrics that can be pointed to (Like CISSP CPEs) to
demonstrate involvement.  Currently there is no measure of this.

This is why I was shouldering the responsibility for individual points
awards/tracking on each Committee.  Conference Volunteers is
actually something not difficult for me to track (as they get in free, need
shirts ordered for them et all, they are identified early).

Each committee knows what's measurable and what's not.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Tony UV <tonyuv at owasp.org> wrote:

> My .02 late in the game is as follows:  (please excuse any redundancy)
>
>
>
> -          Main point, if people need a point system to lead or
> contribute, then there is something wrong here. This is my main gut feeling.
>
> -          Points would be difficult to track and maintain the
> accountability and integrity of. He/She said could ensue, particularly if
> points are awarded to relatively simple actions that are not well defined
> (i.e. – OWASP Conference Volunteer)
>
> -          Don’t think that the point system would have much clout with
> employers.  We could simply do the CPE thing for those that nurse those
> certifications.  They have to find hours anyway and they may as well get
> credit.  All depends on how active we’ve socialized the idea of awarding
> CPEs to volunteers, etc. Works for ISSA/ ISACA to shepherd them in.
>
> -          Point system may work best to cash in to a reward point system
> (which may have already been discussed) where members turn in points for
> freebies (OWASP merch) or points towards expense paid OWASP cons, etc.
>
> -          Corporate level point system may work by letting them rack up
> points so that they could get a free 2 day training from an OWASP lead or
> trainer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony UcedaVelez, CISM, CISA, GSEC
>
> *Chapter Lead*
>
> *OWASP Atlanta*
>
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Atlanta_Georgia
>
> Twitter: *@versprite*
>
>
>
> *From:* global_membership_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
> global_membership_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Bristow
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:36 PM
> *To:* Michael Coates
> *Cc:* global_conference_committee;
> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Global_membership_committee] Honorary Memberships - Vote
> Scheduled for 12/21 @ Membership Meeting
>
>
>
> <inject>
>
>
>
> I actually was talking to Jason Li and Dinis about this at AppSec BR.  We
> were thinking that we could develop a "OWASP Points" System that assigns
> points to people based on the OWASP Activities they do.  Ultimately We'd
> might work out member "levels" or some benefits to add to this, but i
> digress.
>
>
>
> You all would set "global" point values for things like, being a committee
> member, committee chair, board member, and other general member stuff.  The
> thought would be each committee would assign the point values
> for their respective AORs but it would be a Membership
> Committee initiative (see how I volunteered you?).  Committee Chairs would
> have to report in points say, quarterly and they would be assigned on
> completion of the activity.
>
>
>
> As an Example for the GCC we do something like (point values are nominal,
> we'd have to get together and normalize them):
>
>    - OWASP Conference (Core) Organizer: 50 Pts
>    - OWASP Conference Planning Committee Members: 20 Pts
>    - OWASP Conference Voluenteer: 10 Pts
>    - Attend an OWASP Conference: 5pts
>    - Attend OWASP Training Class: 5pts
>    - Host an OWASP Event: 10 Pts
>
> Projects would then do something similar for their stuff (take a project to
> alpha release, lead a project, submit code .... whatever they want)
>
>
>
> Industry, Connections, Education, Chapters and so on.
>
>
>
> This serves 2 functions.  You would be able to show off how many OWASP
> points you'e earned..... and for employers, employees,
> having substantial OWASP points could be a reason to get a raise, job et
> all.
>
>
>
> OFC, you'd have to be a individual member of the organization for any of
> this to be tracked.
>
>
>
> </inject>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> In terms of the self assessment, where you thinking of having a specific
> date for it (i.e. every november) or would it be X months from the last
> review or when the leader was appointed?
>
>
>
> Either way could work, but I think we could keep our heads around it better
> if its at a set date every year. Also we can easily advertise/remind the
> leaders list each time that window roles around.
>
>
>
> Workload-wise it might be better to have this on a rolling basis.  That way
> it could be a recurring task (“we need to review these applications by the
> first of the month”) rather than a huge project (“review ALL the
> applications by Nov 1”)  Also I believe that there will be increased OWASP
> activity for most folks just before their renewals come up and it would be
> better to have that spread throughout the year rather than centered at one
> point on the calendar.
>
>
>
> Good point on the ramp up of OWASP activity that might occur prior to the
> deadline.  I'm for the rolling model, we just need to make sure we have a
> good tracking system in place and have several methods to contact each
> individual.
>
>
>
>
>
> In terms of the review period, what do you think of making it smaller, i.e:
> at least every 6 months?
>
>
>
> Benefits: Cause individuals to reevaluate their contributions more often.
> Possibly leading to people doing more work for OWASP.
>
> Negatives: More work for individuals, more work for reviewers (committees
> analyzing these docs).  May frustrate people to keep filling out these docs.
> Also, sometimes people just get busy at work and have to do less OWASP.  Not
> sure how they'd feel to loose their Honorary Status.
>
>
>
> Might make sense to start with an annual model and increase the tempo if we
> think it will increase involvement and it won’t overload the folks doing the
> reviewing.
>
>
>
> I'm for starting this on an annual basis too.
>
>
>
> -Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_membership_committee mailing list
> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_membership_committee
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Bristow
> (703) 596-5175
> 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
>



-- 
Mark Bristow
(703) 596-5175
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101212/929deb71/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list