[Global_conference_committee] GCC OWASP GCC 2011 Plan

Lucas Ferreira lucas.ferreira at owasp.org
Tue Dec 21 10:05:42 EST 2010


Mark,

there seems to be different understandings of the item

# All OWASP Branded events MUST use the new conference management system

    * For OWASP Events only, not applicable to regular chapter meetings
    * It’s important to manage the schedule and enforce brand management
    * Any conference not registered & approved will not receive OWASP
funds or support
    * Will take effect once system is in place

Maybe we can make ir clearer.

As I understand, what you are proposing is to define that all OWASP
conferences must be registered with the GCC. This should be similar to
the need to register a project with Paulo and/or the GPC in order to
make it an OWASP project.

I also understand that "non-registered" events may happen, but will
not be considered official OWASP events and may not request funds or
other assistance. Isn't this similar to projects? Can someone request
money for a project that OWASP does not know about?

Regarding "brand management", I think we could wait and see how the
schedule management goes before we try this.

So, I propose a new wording for this part of the plan:

# All OWASP conferences (local and global AppSecs, OWASP Days, etc)
MUST be registered in the new conference committee system

    * For OWASP Conferences only, not applicable to regular chapter
meetings or training events
    * It’s important to manage the schedule and to gain visibility of
all the conferences
    * Major conferences (All Global AppSecs and major Regional AppSecs
that are multi-day or multi-track) should be approved and must report
progress to the GCC
    * Any conference not registered will not receive OWASP funds or support
    * Any conference without an approved budget can request a maximum
reimbursement of USD 2500 (using the new process defined at
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Talk:September_8,_2010).
    * Will take effect once system is in place

The idea is to have a compromise such that major conferences are more
regulated than smaller ones. And also to set rules requiring oversight
in order to have big losses covered by the Foundation.

These are my 2c.

Lucas

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:00, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> Well if you have a better suggestion I'm all for it.  We still have the
> problem of not having visibility into OWASP events.  This in turn makes the
> rest of the agenda much more difficult to achieve.  If we keep having
> "pop-up" events all the time, how are we supposed to present "global"
> sponsorships to event managers?  How will we be able to manage the schedule
> so we are not so Q3 and Q4 heavy?  If we can't tell people "no" how can we
> enforce good oversight and fiscal responsibility?  Are you telling me Dinis
> that if an event didn't coordinate with the GCC but used the OWASP brand,
> put on an event with a $15k tab at the end that OWASP would not end up
> paying?  OFC we would, it's been shown this way in the past.  What we're
> trying to do here is proactive not reactive.
>
> As stated, this is the best solution we could come up with to solve the
> issue of the schedule, which is fundamental to the rest of the plan.  This
> is no different than anyone wishing to start an OWASP Project to have to
> loop in Paulo and the GPC.  That's a very similar requirement and I hear no
> objections to that policy.
>
> We're trying to improve the "carrots" as well, but if it's all carrot and no
> stick that will not work.  This is a simple, basic requirement to at least
> inform the committee of your intent to host an event.  It will enable the
> committee to execute all other aspects of the plan for 2011.  I don't
> understand why this is so controversial.
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:47 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ralph's points are real important and I agree with his view.
>> Btw, can I ask everybody not use the word Chaos and Bureaucracy? Everytime
>> I see it used in OWASP it tend to be used on the wrong items, and since most
>> of us seems to have a different definition for those (and they are very
>> 'loaded' concepts), it is probably better to stay away from them :)
>> The lack of oversight on some conferences (like China) is something that
>> needs to be addressed, BUT we have to be careful in changing a system that
>> is working and has delivered 16 conferences in 2010 and 17 in 2009 (some of
>> those were 'OWASP Days')
>> I just re-read the proposed model and it is one of those items that apart
>> from a couple MUSTs it is a great action plan.
>> The problem I see there is how you are going to enforce it, and Mark,
>> maybe part of the problem is that you are putting too much focus on the MUST
>> requirements.
>> As I can see it, the current action plan allows for both dynamics:
>>  a) strong rules with strong enforcement (which will have an alergic
>> reaction from the Community)
>>  b) strong rules with soft enforcement and 'focus on the good behaviour'
>> I like b) because it gives us the best of both world.
>> BUT if GIC is going to do b), then maybe there should be some caveats in
>> there that make it explicit that we allow and expect some conferences to go
>> creative (as long as they don't send us the bill after :)  )
>> Dinis Cruz
>>
>> On 21 December 2010 03:41, Ralph Durkee <ralph.durkee at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks pretty clear there has been too much chaos and not enough
>>> oversight on some of the major conferences,  but I think you're going way
>>> overboard in the other direction having the GCC trying to regulate branding
>>> at non-owasp conferences, and try to regulate too heavy the smaller
>>> community events is a mistake on several levels:
>>>
>>> * We don't have the time and resources - let start slow with the fewer
>>> and more major conferences where the largest stakes are held.
>>> * It's contrary to OWASP openness and spirit of encouraging grass roots
>>> participation
>>> * Branding and logo usage is not just the GCC,  Let's put some general
>>> guidelines and encouragement, but don't get in the way or people spreading
>>> the good word of OWASP.
>>> * If a conferences needs funding then that gives the GCC a hook, for
>>> regulation, but the level of regulation should be proportionate the funding
>>> and level of GCC resources that they needed.
>>> * Bad governance can in fact makes this worse, especially in an extremely
>>> open community like OWASP which is not accustomed to it, you will create a
>>> backlash if we come down heavy.
>>>
>>> As for the schedule I think you're making the same mistake with going too
>>> far.  You need to control the schedule of the global conferences, and we
>>> obviously don't want to control the schedule at the chapter level.  As for
>>> the stuff in between I think the best we want to do is influence schedules,
>>> help with communication  and let the smaller conferences avoid conflicts
>>> themselves.  Any organizer worthwhile knows that a real conflict isn't good
>>> for the conference; that is if it really is a serious conflict at all.
>>>
>>> -- Ralph
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2010 5:58 PM, Ralph Durkee wrote:
>>>
>>> The language only comprehends OWASP banding at chapter meetings and major
>>> OWASP conference events.  I don't think we want to say every other event
>>> can’t use the logo.  For example if they are attending an event, or
>>> presenting at an event or putting on conference and want to include OWASP as
>>> a track etc, then we don't want to say they can’t use the logo.  We all have
>>> different past experiences with different OWASP events, but there’s a lot of
>>> usage of OWASP logos at events that is a good thing for OWASP.
>>>
>>> -- Ralph
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2010 10:18 AM, Mark Bristow wrote:
>>>
>>> ===============================
>>>
>>> Goals
>>>
>>> Have a Global Appsec in NA,
>>> SA, EU, Asia in 2011
>>> Promote OWASP
>>> Projects/Initiatives at OWASP Conferences
>>> Enhance Services for
>>> Conference Planners
>>> Reach out to developers (have
>>> 20% of attendees in a dev position)
>>> Reach out to non-members (have
>>> 70% of attendees at cons non-members)
>>> Bring more into the fold
>>> (Generate 300 new/renewed members at conferences)
>>> Streamline Sponsorships
>>> (Global Conference Sponsors, Targeted Conference Sponsors)
>>> Revise GCC Governance
>>> Have a profit of $200k in 2011 across all
>>> conferences
>>>
>>> Policy Changes
>>>
>>> Change
>>> Conference Types to include:
>>>
>>> OWASP Global
>>> AppSec Conferences (Currently
>>>
>>> AppSec Conferences)
>>> OWASP
>>> Regional/Theme Conference (currently
>>>
>>> Regional, all regional cons will be encouraged have to
>>> have a unique
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> theme, development, Research, PHP, Government, Browsers
>>> …..)
>>>
>>> GCC Member attendance at
>>> conferences Global AppSec
>>>
>>> and Regional/Theme level cons (as available by GCC members
>>> and budget)
>>>
>>> GCC
>>> Representative shall not be intimately involved with the
>>> conference planning to provide an objective assessment.
>>> Members will
>>> have the opportunity to request travel to scheduled events
>>> and travel will be assigned based on proximity to the
>>> event, cost and member availability.
>>> GCC member
>>> shall interface with the local planning committee at least
>>> 1 month before trip (attend planning call)
>>> Interact
>>> with planners/attendees while at conference
>>> Interact
>>> with Sponsors
>>> At the next GCC meeting
>>> the traveling member will be expected to provide an post
>>> trip report covering
>>>
>>> Assessment
>>> of facility
>>> Event Marketing
>>> Strategy
>>> Examination
>>> of Event Budget
>>> Estimation
>>> of Speaker Quality
>>> Sponsor
>>> engagement/cost-effectiveness & feedback
>>> Any notable comments
>>> from planners/attendees
>>> Any unique
>>> outstanding elements
>>> Any issues
>>>
>>> GCC Member
>>> signature authority for OWASP
>>>
>>> (Leverage By-Lawys Article VI Section 1 - Designate as
>>> Agent)
>>>
>>> Alleviate
>>> need of OWASP Board to sign contracts (currently a
>>> significant bottleneck)
>>> All
>>> conference related contracts will be required to go
>>> through the GCC
>>> In general
>>> will be responsibility of Chair, however all committee
>>> members shall be authorized to sign on conference business
>>> (no single point of failure)
>>> GCC members
>>> will not be permitted to sign contracts for conferences
>>> they organize (except when signature is required
>>> immediately)
>>> Will be
>>> offered up before the board
>>>
>>> All OWASP
>>> Branded events MUST use the new conference management system
>>>
>>> For OWASP
>>> Events only, not applicable to regular chapter meetings
>>> It’s important to
>>> manage the schedule and enforce brand management
>>> Any conference not
>>> registered & approved will not receive OWASP funds or
>>> support
>>> Will take effect once
>>> system is in place
>>>
>>> All Global AppSec
>>> conferences must accommodate
>>>
>>> an OWASP Track
>>>
>>> Will not represent more
>>> than 1/3 of content (can be half day, full day, full
>>> conference as applies to the individual conference)
>>> Joint venture with Projects Committee
>>> Regional/theme events will have this available to them
>>>
>>> Initiatives
>>>
>>> OWASP
>>> Conference management system (Goal 1, 3)
>>>
>>> We need a
>>> system to take in applications for events, vett them,
>>> approve them, and schedule them.  The current process of
>>> people emailing Kate, Me or the board is not acceptable
>>> with the number of events we have
>>> I see this
>>> as critical to establishing control over the OWASP
>>> schedule and is a top priority
>>>
>>> OWASP AppSec
>>> Track (Goal 2)
>>>
>>> Partnership
>>> with projects committee
>>> Have a cadre
>>> of speakers, ready to go with presentations about OWASP
>>> projects/activities
>>> 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
>>>
>>> OWASP Global
>>> Conference Sponsors (Goal 3, 7)
>>>
>>> Provide
>>> unified sponsorships for the Global AppSec Conferences
>>> Split
>>> revenues among individual conferences budget
>>> Streamlines
>>> our sponsorships
>>> Conference
>>> planners are welcome to elicit additional sponsorships
>>>
>>> Central
>>> conference support services
>>>
>>>  (Goal 3)
>>>
>>> Investigate
>>> for-hire international conference support companies
>>>
>>> Event
>>> logistics companies
>>>
>>> Investigate
>>> costs for hiring conference organizer
>>>
>>> Foundation
>>> Employee
>>>
>>> Conference
>>> Marketing (Goal 3)
>>>
>>> OWASP
>>> Conference Twitter accounts
>>> OWASP
>>> Conference Domain Names
>>>
>>> Register
>>> Names only
>>> http://www.AppSecNA.org
>>> http://www.AppSecUS.org
>>> http://www.AppSecEU.org
>>> http://www.AppSecAsia.org
>>> http://www.AppSecSA.org
>>> If already owned by a
>>> conference, buy them out/transfer to GCC Control
>>> GCC will
>>> re-direct to any hosting service once the conference has
>>> been assigned
>>> Conference
>>> can still register AppSecXX2011.org and we can just
>>> redirect as appropriate
>>> Helps
>>> maintain consistency in URLs between years
>>>
>>> Conference
>>> Twitter Accounts
>>>
>>> Like
>>> domains, turned over to planners for their use as
>>> appropriate
>>> @OWASPConfrences
>>> – held by the GCC for announcements
>>> @OWASPAppSec
>>> – held by the GCC for announcements
>>> @AppSecNA
>>> @AppSecUS
>>> @AppSecEU
>>> @AppSecAsia
>>> @AppSecSA
>>>
>>> Use of Short
>>> URLS on the owasp.org
>>> website
>>>
>>> ex https://owasp.org/AppSecBR
>>> points to the wiki page for this year’s conference
>>>
>>> Regional
>>> Targeted Mailing Lists
>>>
>>> To reduce
>>> OWASP All traffic
>>>
>>> OWASP
>>> Merchandise Model(Goal 3, Goal9)
>>>
>>> A shippable
>>> “OWASP Store” with OWASP branded items for sale at
>>> conferences
>>> Already
>>> exists, just need to formalize
>>>
>>> OWASP
>>> Conference Marketing (global, regional, electronic, print)
>>> (Goal 4,5,6)
>>>
>>> Procure
>>> Booth space at developer focused conferences
>>> Provide
>>> budget for OWASP Schwag for use at OWASP Booths in other
>>> conferences
>>> Evaluate
>>> other advertising mechanisms for conferences
>>>
>>> Budget
>>>
>>> $7500 for conference support
>>> (schwag/tables) targeting developer conferences
>>> $500 OWASP GCC Technology
>>> Needs
>>>
>>> Domain Names
>>> Other tech solutions +
>>> planning tools
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> $15,000, OWASP Track Travel
>>> expenses (cap, will try and get indv company sponsorships)
>>> $10,000 GCC Member at all
>>> conferences (approx $1500/AppSec, $800 Regional)
>>> Budget requires board approval
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Global_conference_committee mailing list
>>> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>



-- 
Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list