[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 13:25:01 EST 2010


Mark, fair enough, its your call and I will respect your decision (I just
wanted to make sure that if you guys wanted to have no caps on the 30% going
to the local chapter, you would have my support as a Board Member)

Since the Conferences Committee is the one that will have to deal with the
'conferences + local chapter teams', you guys need to choose the model that
you are more comfortable with and fell will be more successful on the ground

:)

Dinis Cruz

On 13 December 2010 18:17, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:

> Dinis,
>
> We're discussing 30% of conference profits going to a chapter, with 70% to
> the foundation with a cap.  As an example AppSecUS made just north of 100k
> this year, so about 30k.
>
> The pre-submitted budgets isn't something that's on the table.  It's a
> requirement for AppSec Conferences to submit to the committee so we have
> proper management and oversight.
>
> I would argue having X months to spend the money adds complexity in
> accounting as now you have to look at when funds were deposited.
>
> I'm still not seeing where there are local leaders who are NOT getting the
> support they need if they need substantial funds to do something.  Is there
> some outcry I am not aware of?
>
> With my chapter leader hat on, there's nothing I can think of doing that I
> either don't have money for, or can't get money for from OWASP Foundation.
>  As a committee member, I can think of TONS of ways to spend this money such
> as sponsoring Developer contests, or outreach as an example.  If other
> chapter leaders aren't aware of these ways to get funds, perhaps we need to
> to a better job of messaging this.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> We are talking about 40% of the profit of the conference going to the
>> local conference and 60 going to the OWASP mothership, right?
>>
>> So in the case where the local chapter would get 32k, that would mean a
>> profit of 80k in the conference with 48k going to OWASP (so there is a level
>> of fairness here, isn't it?).
>>
>> I do think that the model I am proposing in much simpler (since it doesn't
>> require pre-submitted budgets for example) and if you add a rule that a
>> chapter has X months to spend wisely  these funds, that money goes back to
>> the mothership (note how I keep using the wise word).
>>
>> I guess, my intent here is to create a model that will promote the right
>> behaviour from our local leaders, and encourage/motivate them to have highly
>> profitable conferences (assuming that all is done accordingly with our
>> values)
>>
>> Dinis Cruz
>>
>> On 13 December 2010 14:52, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's not what I said, in fact I think that chapters can come up with
>>> new and creative ways to wisely spend funds.  What I said was that the
>>> organization at large needs them too.  Is there some outcry of chapters that
>>> need more $ and can't find a source that I am missing?
>>>
>>> My point is that chapters may do all of the things you mention, but with
>>> the exception of some cases they are not.  The ones that are adopting
>>> projects, flying in speakers et all are doing so already as far as I know
>>> with the funds they have and the additional funding sources from the
>>> foundation that are available, especially with some of the
>>> recently established programs.
>>>
>>> I agree that chapters should have some funds and feel empowered to use
>>> them as they see fit, however in my example 30k represents 10% of ALL 2009
>>> OWASP Expenditures (based on
>>> http://www.owasp.org/images/3/3f/2009AnnualReport.pdf).  I feel that
>>> this is disproportionate for one chapter to hold 10% of OWASP
>>> operational expenditures.  Also there are 174 chapters.  With this model, we
>>> can easily over-subscribe our funding to chapters, so this is not
>>> sustainable.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:18 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not allowing the chapters have those funds? Do you think they will
>>>> abuse it?
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason why chapters cannot have a bigger role in OWASP's
>>>> governance and on money spending activities (for example a chapter could
>>>> 'adopt' a number of projects / Committee and on the Summit case cover the
>>>> cost of multiple participants). The main thing about money at OWASP is
>>>> people feeling empowered to spend it wisely, which if you look around is
>>>> actually a big problem at OWASP.
>>>>
>>>> Everytime we spend a bit of money we tend to make more money, so one of
>>>> the big issues we have at OWASP is for our leaders to feel empowered and
>>>> motivated to spend it.
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately it is all OWASP money, so the more it is wisely spent the
>>>> better (and remember that the local chapters will only screw-up once :)
>>>>  i.e. if there are abuses we can always move that money to OWASP central)
>>>>
>>>> And if the chapter cannot find a way to spend the money wisely, then
>>>> after a period (6 or 12 months) that money should go back to OWASP central
>>>> (the idea of an 'expiry date' we talked before)
>>>>
>>>> Dinis Cruz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 December 2010 14:07, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I got to push back.  Take AppSec US, your telling me you are fine
>>>>> with them getting 30k in their budget?  Compared with my new model that's
>>>>> 27k that the foundation can't spend on stuff like the summit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm ok with raising the cap to say 5/7 k but I don't see the needs of
>>>>> any chapter to have such a substantial budget, especially when chapters
>>>>> don't have to front money from their budgets for conferences or events (GCC
>>>>> does that) and there are a variety of funding sources like  OotM and the
>>>>> $500/$2500 available through dinis's new program..
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree chapters need a pool of funds for a variety of items
>>>>> (especially the ones I can't think of) but I can't see a chapter spending
>>>>> 30k even over a few years.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my wireless device
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 8:48 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Tin that there shouldn't be a cap on the split to the
>>>>> chapter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, with the Summit, we are going to (hopefully) start the tradition
>>>>> that the local funds should also be used for such events/activities (which
>>>>> is where OWASP central would use that money).
>>>>>
>>>>> And after all, its all OWASP money, the only difference is 'who feels
>>>>> empowered to spend it'
>>>>>
>>>>> On the topic of spending, in the future it might be a good idea to put
>>>>> an expiry date on those funds so that the Chapters/Projects don't just sit
>>>>> on the funds
>>>>>
>>>>> Dinis Cruz
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13 December 2010 07:34, Tin Zaw < <tin.zaw at owasp.org>
>>>>> tin.zaw at owasp.org> 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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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>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_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_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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
>>>>>> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
>>>>>> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
>>>>>> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw>
>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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/20101213/6273bf79/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list