[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 13:28:36 EST 2010


Dinis,

As always, I appreciate your input, and agree to disagree ;)  That said, I'd
like to hear from more of the committee members so we can come to consensus
on this.

I'd also like some input from chapters if possible before we make any
decisions.

-Mark

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
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/20101213/2fe3d06b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list