[Global_conference_committee] GCC VOTE: GCC 2011 Plan

Lucas Ferreira lucas.ferreira at owasp.org
Tue Dec 14 17:50:31 EST 2010


On Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> Cassio... some inline comments
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Cassio Goldschmidt <cassio at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>
> Very nice plan Mark! Here are a couple of suggestions:
>
> each out to non-members (have 70% of attendees at cons non-members) -> I think the goal should be that *everyone* becomes a member. We should make the price of conference + membership < price of conference for all conference.
>
> This is actually problematic.  For example, some companies (and governments) will gladly pay for conference admission, but can not sponsor professional organization memberships due to regulations.
>
>

We did this membership + conf < conf alone for appsec brasil and got
less then 10 new members. I think Mark is right, companies sponsor
conferences but not membership.

Lucas

>
> Require all OWASP Regional and AppSec events to have an “OWASP Track” of at least 6 presentations from this pool, managed, selected, and funded by the GCC and the GPC -> Make it a minumum percentage of the total number of talks. 6 presentations is a huge hit for a 1 day, 1 track conference. I'd say the percentage should be something around 15% or 18%. A 1 day 3 track conference would have 1/2 day dedicated to OWASP (4 talks). A 2 day 3 tracks conference would have an entire track for 1 day. We must be able to ensure conference organizers can meet these targets without sacrifying quality.
>
> My new thinking on this, drop the Require on Regional, Require it for Global Appsecs, and make it available to regional, this way, we can work with the mid tier conferences on what works for them.  Global AppSecs should all just plan it in.
>
>
>
> Themes for regional conferences: I agree with Ralph we should drop the theme idea. Application + Security + Web is a very restrictive theme on itself.
>
>
> I think we should encourage a theme, but not require it.  It helps drive focus of events.
>
>
> Cassio
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> On second thought.  I'll wait 24 hrs from now for you all to respond before setting up re-vote.  In case there is any additional discussion.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> Sorry, I missed all the stuff on encouraging themes, your right.  I will submit for re-vote
>
>
> RE:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Requires Board Vote (This sweems a little out of place, I would assume the whole goverance would go to the board)
>
>
> Only the Board can provide this authority per the By-Laws
>
>
> RE:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All OWASP Branded events MUST use conference mgmt system to use brand (must be enforced) Local chapter events use the brand, I don't think we can or should state this so broadly)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> See initiatives ( I think we want to hold out on the MUST for this until we have shown we have a good process)
>
>
> Local events should also have to do this.  It enforces brand control and gives us visibility into what's going on.  The idea is that local events will not require our approval, simply give us oppertunity to not-concurr
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree we need this system in place ASAP.  But remember, this is the plan, not all is immediate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list