[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