[Global_conference_committee] [Global_membership_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 14:46:14 EST 2010


Personally,  I like this approach.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:

> A few thoughts.
>
> 1. We aren't going to find a magical solution that makes everyone happy.
> Compromise is always required.
> 2. We are kind of going about this the wrong way.  It seems we keep
> suggesting solutions without agreeing on the problem statement and intended
> goals.
> 3. I do think Mark has a great point regarding "I still have not heard/seen
> 1 example of where chapters are not getting the support they need."
>
> So, can I suggest the following more structured discussion.
>
> - We figure out what problem we are trying to solve? Maybe that is as
> simple as how to disperse funds from conferences.
> - We put together the factors of concern E.g. Chapters should be rewarded
> for hard work, Chapters need more money because...., OWASP mothership needs
> more money because...., etc
> - We create a proposal for a solution, put it on the wiki, and argue why
> its right
> - We (determine who "we" is) cast a vote for the best proposal and go with
> it.
>
> Otherwise we will talk ourselves to death and never decide on anything.
>
>
>
> Michael Coates
> OWASP
>
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>
> Clearly, we are never going to build consensus on this.....
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> I think Kate's idea is great and should be given more thought.
>>
>> The concept of a 'chapter/conferences fund' is a great compromise between
>> the models discussed on this thread. It would empower all chapters and still
>> reward the chapter that successfully delivered the conference profits (in
>> fact in the model proposed by Kate the local chapter would have
>> theoretically direct access to 40% of the profit, versus the previously
>> discussed 30%)
>>
>> This chapter fund could also be the source of the GCC funding (i.e. the
>> next financial year would be the only year that OWASP central would seed the
>> GCC 'Chapter/Conferences Fund' )
>>
>> Dinis Cruz
>>
>>
>> On 14 December 2010 18:32, Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Group, everyone has valid points.  Chapters want to be empowered to be
>>> able to secure the funding they need to move their chapter ahead.  The
>>> foundation depends on the revenue to provide support to all 160 + chapters
>>> plus fund committee projects as well as a myriad of other obligations and
>>> “wish lists.”
>>>
>>>
>>> I would suggest a moderate compromise….
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.  implement a 40/60 revenue split from the conference profits
>>>
>>> 2.  60% goes directly to the “mothership” to make sure that operational
>>> costs are covered
>>>
>>> 3. 10% goes directly to the local chapter who provided the volunteers to
>>> help the conference run successfully
>>>
>>> 4.  30% goes into a “chapter fund” that is available to ALL chapters for
>>> local chapter activities.
>>>
>>>
>>> This makes sure that the local chapter is “rewarded” directly and that
>>> there are still funds available to assist other chapters who may just be
>>> getting started and need a bit of a financial platform on which to get
>>> going.  (I can point to the new Uruguay chapter as an example).  The host
>>> chapter is most certainly eligible to withdraw funds from this pool as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> My major hold up with the revenue split was the idea (from a strictly
>>> operational and global perspective) of the mothership not having sufficient
>>> funds available to assist chapters who are not large enough to have hosted a
>>> major AppSec Event.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kate Hartmann
>>>
>>> Operations Director
>>>
>>> 301-275-9403
>>>
>>> www.owasp.org
>>>
>>> Skype:  Kate.hartmann1
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
>>> global_conference_committee-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
>>> Bristow
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:04 AM
>>> *To:* Dave Wichers
>>> *Cc:* global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org; Eoin; Richard Greenberg;
>>> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org; global_conference_committee
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Global_conference_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue
>>> Splitting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input.  I'm also looping in the chapters and membership
>>> committees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this someting you think that the board wants to tackle, or do you want
>>> us to continue at the Committee level?
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org>
>>> 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>
>>> 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> 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>
>>> 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> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>> 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
>
> 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_membership_committee mailing list
>
> Global_membership_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_membership_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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101214/75101235/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list