[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Ralph Durkee ralph.durkee at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 10:10:50 EST 2010


I didn't see this on the list, so I'm resending from earlier this
morning.  Sorry if it's a duplicate.

On 12/13/2010 7:14 AM, Ralph Durkee wrote:
> I agree. We'll hurt ourselves with a cap, and we need to motivate the
> profitability of the events.   Also, in generally I find OWASP
> chapters are rather impoverished compared to other professional
> organizations.  I think it would be better to have a 50/50 split to
> provide incentive for chapters to have conferences.   Also might be
> good to consider terminology, for example what is their any difference
> between a chapter meeting with 4 tracks and a conference? Does this
> affect the revenue sharing? Consider that other professional
> organizations are going to ask for little or nothing from regional
> events.  I know our model is different, but expectations for many are
> set by other professional organizations.
>
> -- Ralph
>
> On 12/13/2010 2:34 AM, Tin Zaw wrote:
>> I don't think the cap is a good idea. If the conference generates
>> more than $10k in profit (like AppSec USA did), why not let the local
>> chapter(s) get more share. It's a win-win for both local chapter(s)
>> and HQ -- more incentive to make it more profitable. The cap could
>> also mean more incentive for local chapters to cap conference profits
>> at $10k by spending conference on extravagant stuff like gifts,
>> parties, etc. 
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org
>> <mailto:mark.bristow at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Ooh, important oversite, sorry just not thinking.
>>
>>     Membership revenue will count to the conference overall budget
>>     (at the normal rate).  This way, it indirectly still helps the
>>     chapter (by increasing profitability) and is infinitely easier
>>     for Kate and Alison to reconcile the ledger.
>>
>>     On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Michael Coates
>>     <michael.coates at owasp.org <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         How do you plan to handle Membership signups under this new
>>         policy (i.e bullet #2 below)?
>>
>>         Michael Coates
>>         OWASP
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>>
>>>         GCC,
>>>
>>>         The current policy on how conference profit splitting is
>>>         done is unclear and has been unevenly applied.  This issue
>>>         has come up recently and I can't seem to find a final policy
>>>         decision on it, so here we go.  We should get this squared
>>>         away with a vote after some debate.  Things that people
>>>         thought it were are:
>>>
>>>             * None
>>>             * Chapter gets the normal split of any Membership
>>>               signups/renewals done with Con registration & at the
>>>               conference
>>>             * Chapters get 30% of Conference Profits (note, profits
>>>               not revenue), Conference keeps membership income
>>>
>>>         I propose a new policy:
>>>
>>>         A conference host chapter shall receive 30% of conference
>>>         profits, up to a cap of $3,000 into their chapter expense
>>>         account.  In cases where there are multiple host chapters,
>>>         30% of conference profits, up to a cap of $4,000 shall be
>>>         split evenly among the host chapters, or via
>>>         any distribution agreed upon by the host chapters.  This
>>>         applies to Global AppSec and Regional Conferences.  Profits
>>>         from local events will be split 50/50 with the foundation.
>>>
>>>         Now, before we get into "why do chapters need to get a split
>>>         at all", a camp I used to be a member of, hosting an
>>>         AppSec conference or regional conference is a HUGE
>>>         undertaking, as we all know.  I think this is a fair policy
>>>         in compensating the local chapter who volunteers much
>>>         of their time to put on a conference.  While the amounts are
>>>         capped I think it's a reasonable cap as chapters don't
>>>         generally have large expenses.
>>>
>>>         Any thoughts, comments on this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         Mark Bristow
>>>         (703) 596-5175
>>>         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
>>>         <https://www.appsecdc.org/>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>>         Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>>         <mailto:Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>>         https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Mark Bristow
>>     (703) 596-5175
>>     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
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>     Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>     <mailto:Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
>> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
>> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101213/b40ad659/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list