[Global_conference_committee] [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_membership_committee] Conference/Chapter Revenue Splitting

L. Gustavo C. Barbato lgbarbato at owasp.org
Sat Dec 18 10:04:10 EST 2010

Sorry, English mistake:

$ sed -e 's/embassy/underlie/g' < previous_email

L. *Gustavo* C. *Barbato*, Ph.D.
Chapter Leader, OWASP Porto Alegre / *Brazil*
Global Chapter Committee Member

On 12/18/2010 12:18 PM, L. Gustavo C. Barbato wrote:
> 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 Committee 
> directly.
> 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
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Gustavo_Barbato
> 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 event.
>> 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
>>     http://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Gustavo_Barbato
>>     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 then
>>>     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
>>>     active.
>>>     The fund idea seams a good solution to me.
>>>     Regards,
>>>     Lucas
>>>     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 (those
>>>         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
>>>         places:
>>>         > 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>
>>>         >
>>>         https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         --
>>>         --
>>>         Neil
>>>     -- 
>>>     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>
>>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>> -- 
>> 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...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101218/6a0751aa/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list