[Global_conference_committee] Chapter Revenue Share From OWASP events

[email protected] neil at owasp.org
Sun Dec 26 21:52:36 EST 2010

I also agree. I would like to see the money go towards owasp initiatives.  
<9 page emotional dump omitted>

Sent from my mobile phone. 

----- Reply message -----
From: "Lucas Ferreira" <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>
Date: Sun, Dec 26, 2010 4:16 pm
Subject: [Global_conference_committee] Chapter Revenue Share From OWASP events
To: "John Wilander" <john.wilander at owasp.org>
Cc: <alison.shrader at owasp.org>, "global_conference_committee" <global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>

I agree with John. Specially, the notion of rich and poor chapters bothers me.



On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 20:20, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org> wrote:
> Kate (cc GCC and Alison),
> What is your take on what I wrote previously:
> Hosting chapter(s) should get some share of the revenue. This is to keep the
> regional fire burning and grow OWASP around that chapter. If you first do
> AppSec and then go back to mediocre meetings with local speakers, the
> members will be disappointed. In Sweden we definitely felt we had to kick it
> up a notch after AppSec EU this summer. Now we're using our chapter's money
> to backup that next level. So far we've been able to get sponsoring so the
> money is still untouched.
> Hosting chapter(s) should not get a substantial part of the revenue and
> there should be a cap. I don't like the notion of rich and poor chapters
> within the same foundation. After a successful AppSec you get a decent
> one-time sum to beef up your chapter, then you're back on the same terms as
> all the others. We can use the figures from AppSec US and EU 2008-2010 to
> nail a reasonable percentage and cap.
> Too fuzzy? Too much of a chapter perspective?
> I do want to keep a global perspective and get this important issue right.
> Maybe we should ask a few thriving chapters who have not hosted an AppSec
> yet? Maybe they have some fresh input?
>    /John
> 2010/12/22 Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org>
>> I have pulled this discussion off of most of the mailing lists and dropped
>> it back on Conferences’ plate.  I am really trying to be objective here, but
>> honestly, I’m getting frustrated by the comments I’m reading.  I really try
>> in most situations to allow the community to be the driver, but as this
>> topic will affect the viability of the foundation (mothership), 160+ local
>> chapters, and 20,000+ members of the owasp all mailing list I need to try to
>> get EVERYONE to think globally on this issue.  We are, after all, the
>> conference committee.  According to the Conference committee website:  The
>> Global Conferences Committee was created during the OWASP EU Summit in
>> Portugal 2008. The primary purpose of this Global Conferences Committee is:
>> determine location, frequency and to oversee and direct global conferences,
>> speakers and training.
>> It says nothing about allowing chapters build their revenue through
>> Please, guys, let’s stay focused on what we need to do.  If chapters feel
>> they need more funding, then they should go through the Global chapter
>> committee to make that happen.
> [snip]
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
Global_conference_committee mailing list
Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101226/41855092/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list