[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 10:16:01 EST 2010


Ralph,

I'd contend, other organizations have significantly more money than we do.
 That said, I've never heard of a chapter who didn't get funding
for something.  I'm not seeing the need here, especially when there are
significant needs at the organizational level (remember, we as a GCC are
going to ask for a 30k budget assuming our plan is approved, this money has
to come from somewhere).

(sidepluged the chapters committee)

-Mark

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ralph Durkee <ralph.durkee at owasp.org>wrote:

>  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>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
>> > 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20101213/64d9e7b6/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list