[Global_conference_committee] Amendments to the recently approved GCC Governance Document (was: vote thread)

Lucas Ferreira lucas.ferreira at owasp.org
Sun Dec 19 18:49:45 EST 2010


John,

Doesn't the new OWASP Global AppSec name solve this issue?

Lucas

On Sunday, December 19, 2010, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org> wrote:
> Just to be clear on the protected AppSec name ...
>
> I've been thinking and now lean towards opening up for new regional AppSecs. The "only historic regional AppSecs can use the name" argument is too weak and Mark really risks getting criticism for having been biased when the GCC took the decision. At the same time I would hate to ruin all the hard, volunteer work of building up great brands for OWASP (AppSec Ireland, AppSec DC etc).
>
> Instead I think we should use the sought after AppSec name as a way of injecting all the GCC stuff we want to get in place. Such as welcoming global sponsors, planning and communicating with the GCC X months ahead, having a mandatory OWASP booth, allowing for an OWASP track should there be good speakers available, using the event system etc.
>
> What do you think? A nuisance bringing this closed question up again?
>
>    Regards, John
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 18 dec 2010, at 19:29, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think secret votes are the prime thing. The ability to bring up sensitive questions to discussion is.
>>
>> Example: I've been concerned about the GCC's decision to let _current_ regional AppSecs keep their AppSec names whereas new regional OWASP conferences cannot use the protected AppSec label. This is a clear conflict of interest for Mark since he really wants to keep his AppSec DC brand (understandable) but might stir up arguments in the community down the road.
>>
>> I would like to discuss such questions free from conflicts of interest to be able to do my best for OWASP. Then my vote, should there be one, can and should be open and on the record.
>>
>> Regards, John
>>
>>
>> Skickat från min iPhone
>>
>> 18 dec 2010 kl. 19:14 skrev dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>:
>>
>>> Can you think of the scenarious where you would need a 'secret vote'?
>>>
>>> Dinis Cruz
>>>
>>> On 18 Dec 2010, at 16:16, Lucas Ferreira <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding the need to step aside during calls, maybe secret votes
>>>> could be a solution. In the case more than one committee member
>>>> requires, we should implement secret votes. Some may argue that this
>>>> goes against the required openess, but I secret votes may be important
>>>> in some accasions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Lucas
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2010, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> John,
>>>>> Inline comments below.
>>>>> FYI All, Looped in the GCC list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/12/17 Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So john, some inline comments to your comments below.
>>>>> Also, do you approve the doc as is and want to put up separate
>>>>> changes, or is this a reject?  If so, we'll re-open for discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I approve as long as we can discuss and get changes in there
>>>>> eventually.
>>>>> Doing it now,  Looped in the main GCC list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I like Mark but I still think we should have a max on how many
>>>>> years (in a row) you can be chair. My suggestion is three years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine by me.  If I got elected for 2011, would make it my last year.
>>>>> To be clear – I think you're doing a great job and I'm not challen
>>>>> ging you. But I think it's healthy to have a max. Would be good fo
>>>>> r the OWASP Board too. People tend to deliver their best if they k
>>>>> now the timeframe for their engagement and there's a natural succe
>>>>> ssion when people know there has to be a new leader/chair chosen.
>>>>> Look at American presidents vs Swedish ever-prime ministers. I muc
>>>>> h prefer the American "you get two terms max".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A) feel free to challenge meB) I agree, some term limits are
>>>>> healthy to keep things fresh.  I agree on the board comment but
>>>>> that's for the new Governance working session that I just found out
>>>>> I'm in......
>>>>>
>>>>> C) I don't think that Lifetime M

-- 
Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list