[Global_conference_committee] [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_membership_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting
L. Gustavo C. Barbato
lgbarbato at owasp.org
Sat Dec 18 09:18:13 EST 2010
One thing is having only one chapter per country, which can host an
AppSec yearly (yearly earnings), another is many of them which means
many different administrations. My previous comments were just related
to have a fair distribution because when we talk about fairness, we must
not only look at our own situation (which sometimes may be comfortable)
but think and decide collectively as a real team with the same strongest
goal in mind which is support OWASP organization (HQ).
In this case, a possible question can come to somebody's mind which I'd
like to try to answer pro-actively: So why not having only one chapter
per country then and get everybody together under a centralized
administration? Well, first of all, some countries are big enough for
such division; decentralization gives more motivation to leaders because
they can take decisions by "their own"; they can be more creative; more
contributions in a long term - membership and projects; different ways
of treating some subjects because even though we are talking about the
same country, different regions/states/cities has different culture. All
in all, I have many others reasons but as this is not the main point of
this thread I'll stop here not to mix subjects-- if somebody is against
of such distribution, please feel free to contact me or Chapters
Regarding asking for $, frankly, I prefer proving mechanisms to chapters
earn by themselves instead of just asking whenever necessary (in the
case of this thread, one of the mechanism is hosting conferences - I
know others BTW). Well, in order to embassy my saying aforementioned I'd
like to use a /proverb/:
"//Give/ a man a /fish/; you have fed him for today. /Teach/ a man to
/fish///; and you have fed him for a lifetim/e". Please don't
misunderstand, I'm not saying that to host a conference doesn't involve
Conference Committee support including $ sometimes - of course it does -
my point is just related to chapters "being paid" for their work on
conferences. Mechanism: do all necessary work to host a conference;
Compensation: a good part of the Conferences earnings. Just it! In this
manner, everybody feels happy!
L. *Gustavo* C. *Barbato*, Ph.D.
Chapter Leader, OWASP Porto Alegre / *Brazil*
Global Chapter Committee Member
On 12/17/2010 10:21 AM, John Wilander wrote:
> Gosh, some heavy emailing going on here.
> Just a short one to answer Mark's request for examples of chapters
> being denies funding.
> I think this is not a case of chapters asking for money and being
> denied. No such examples to my knowledge. I think the case is "we have
> no money so we don't do X and Y". Chapters don't feel empowered or
> comfortable to write an email to Mark or Kate and ask for $. Instead
> they strive in mediocracy and skip doing better events.
> In concrete terms ... Samy Kamkar's talks at several European chapters
> were a huge success. But they were _not_ initiated by empowered
> chapters. It was a /central/ OWASP initiative with a /central/ funding
> solution in place. Now OWASP Sweden wants to pursue this path and
> invite Mario Heiderich, Gareth Heyes, Dinis Cruz etc. Great! But have
> we written an email to Mark yet? No. Not even I, being a member of the
> GCC, feel comfortable asking for the foundation's money to run a local
> In this case OWASP Sweden actually has money. Why? Because we got a
> share of the revenue from OWASP AppSec in Stockholm. So we're going to
> fly Mario Heiderich in and build upon the success with Samy. We
> already have more than 500 members and we asked them what we should
> use the chapter's money for. Answer: More international experts giving
> talks and tutorials. This is what the chapter members want.
> (Of course we will try to find sponsors to lower the chapter's costs
> and we will try to cooperate with OWASP Finland and Norway so we can
> share travel costs.)
> Regards, John
> 2010/12/16 L. Gustavo C. Barbato <lgbarbato at owasp.org
> <mailto:lgbarbato at owasp.org>>
> I also defend the idea of collaboration between chapters in order
> to achieve great conferences results - when I say collaboration I
> do mean collaborate
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collaborate> (/to work,
> one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work/), in other
> words, without having profits in mind.
> However, aiming to compensate the collaboration on conferences and
> have a fair support of OWASP, I do defend the idea of having
> conferences in different cities yearly according to local chapters
> locations. Nevertheless, we can't forget the hard work necessary
> of local chapters to host a conference -- I know that because
> after the AppSec Brazil 2010 (last month), I don't stop thinking
> and working on AppSec 2011 -- it's already being time-consuming.
> L. *Gustavo* C. *Barbato*, Ph.D.
> Chapter Leader, OWASP Porto Alegre / *Brazil*
> Global Chapter Committee Member
> On 12/15/2010 12:29 PM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>> Comments forwarded on Lucas's behalf (he's on vacation and can't
>> send as the right user.....)
>> I don't like the idea of having one chapter getting so more funds
>> others. For AppSec Brasil, we will have people from multiple chapters
>> involved and it would not be nice to have one chapter getting all the
>> money. Having to decide a split amongst chapters would need energy
>> that could be better used somewhere else.
>> In principle, I don't like the idea of having chapters "fighting" for
>> money, and we may have this in the future if the chapter split is too
>> high. I'm afraid collaboration may decrease in the long run. On the
>> oher hand, I'd like to see a solution that increases the involvement
>> of chapter leader in our conferences, specially to have people from
>> different chpaters to collaborate in conference teams.
>> I think that having many chapters with some money is better than
>> having a few chapters with a lot of money. I think we should invest
>> more in getting more active chapters than making a few chapters more
>> The fund idea seams a good solution to me.
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Neil Matatall <neil at owasp.org
>> <mailto:neil at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> Well this thread has become epic and unfortunately I haven't
>> been able
>> to catch all of the ideas. I really hope I can catch up, but why
>> don't we have a conference call or discuss this at the summit
>> not in attendance will have to be accommodated somehow)?
>> Times like these make me wish my phone has an "threaded"
>> email view :(
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jason Li <jason.li
>> <http://jason.li>@owasp.org <http://owasp.org>> wrote:
>> > So taking Michael's suggestion of starting fresh, I've
>> cleared the long
>> > quote of the thread.
>> > As an observer to the thread, I'm going to capture what I
>> think has been
>> > mentioned so far on the thread.
>> > And then I'll weigh in with my humble opinion, keeping in
>> mind that I am not
>> > involved in the Conferences Committee, Membership
>> Committee, Chapter
>> > Committee, or the Board (in other words, I'm a nobody in
>> this conversation
>> > :)).
>> > ----
>> > Summary of Problem:
>> > Where does Conference revenue go?
>> > Points of Concern:
>> > 1) Conferences are put on with the assistance of local
>> chapters and
>> > coordination/support from the OWASP mothership
>> > 2) We want a way to reward local chapters for their help with
>> > running/coordinating a conference
>> > 3) We want conference attendees the option to get OWASP
>> Memberships bundled
>> > in with the conference
>> > 4) Chapters need money to do things
>> > -------
>> > Now with that out of the way, my personal thoughts:
>> > #4 is completely independent of Conference revenue. There
>> are lots of other
>> > OWASP sectors that also need money to do things (Projects
>> and Summits for
>> > example). If there is a need for Chapters to do something,
>> then this should
>> > be allocated out of the main OWASP mothership budget and
>> not out of
>> > Conference revenue.
>> > In my view, conference revenue should go to one of three
>> > 1) OWASP Mothership fund (where the Board can then
>> re-allocate as needed to
>> > support Chapters or other initiatives as appropriate)
>> > 2) Local Chapter(s) supporting the conference (in order to
>> recognize their
>> > support)
>> > 3) Conferences fund managed by the Conferences Committee
>> > I'm not even sure if #3 is really necessary as that could
>> also fall under
>> > #1.
>> > The only real debate is what proportion of the revenue
>> should go into which
>> > bucket. That's where I believe this debate originally
>> started. All this
>> > other talk about chapter needs and a chapter fund has
>> clouded the
>> > discussion.
>> > -Jason
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Global_conference_committee mailing list
>> > Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>> <mailto:Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.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
>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
>> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> <mailto:Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
> John Wilander, https://twitter.com/johnwilander
> Chapter co-leader OWASP Sweden, http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com
> Co-organizer Global Summit, http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011
> Conf Comm, http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Global_conference_committee