[Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting
Ralph Durkee
ralph.durkee at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 13:32:23 EST 2010
Maybe were talking from 2 different perspectives, I didn't know that the
bulk (or a lot of) of the work for the large conferences was done by
OWASP central, but I would but I doubt the same would be true of the
medium and smaller conferences, if that's the case then maybe the
sharing needs to take that into an account.
-- Ralph
On 12/13/2010 7:41 PM, Dave Wichers wrote:
>
> I agree with Mark. I think the assistance of the local chapter should
> be rewarded but a lot of the assistance comes from OWASP itself and
> the track record of having the AppSec USA event year after year.
>
>
>
> And I really think OWASP central can more easily allocate large amount
> of funds more wisely to the benefit of all of OWASP and its community.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:*global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Bristow
> *Sent:* Monday, December 13, 2010 9:52 AM
> *To:* dinis cruz
> *Cc:* global_conference_committee; Richard Greenberg; Eoin
> *Subject:* Re: [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter
> Revenue Splitting
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101214/861a6ba5/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Global_conference_committee
mailing list