[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Ralph Durkee ralph.durkee at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 15:38:21 EST 2010


I don't think we'd want to cap a chapters membership money if a chapter
got "too many" members, or any other success criteria and the 40% share
seems consistent we if we set it the same as membership.    The truth is
it's all OWASP money, none of the chapters have their own bank account,
so it's still under OWASP control even with a 40% share.  Is there
really much room for much abuse of spending given that everything a
chapter spends has to be approved or reimbursement anyways.  The 40% is
meant to motivate the local  grass roots chapters which I think is
important to the success of OWASP.

--Ralph


On 12/13/2010 1:28 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>                     <mailto: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
>                         <mailto: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
>>                         <mailto: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
>>                             <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
>>>
>>>                                     _______________________________________________
>>>                                     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
>>
>>
>>                             _______________________________________________
>>                             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
>
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         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
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101213/38a7665d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list