[Global_conference_committee] Chapter Revenue Share From OWASP events

James Wickett wickett at gmail.com
Sun Dec 26 23:48:41 EST 2010


There is a big difference between an AppSec conference and a FROC or
LASCON.  We should figure out a way to reward new conferences that bring in
new revenue and members for OWASP and maybe there should be a graduated
scale for revenue share between OWASP mother ship and the chapter.  If a
conference brings in 0 to 2K in profit, then the chapter keeps 75%, if 2K to
5K then the chapter keeps 50%...  Also there should be a limit to total
amount to the chapter.

Whatever we decide, we should make sure that it is clearly notated on the
website.  I think part of the issue here is that people were surprised that
there was any revenue sharing whereas if that was noted up front then there
would be no question.

Best,
James



------
J. H. Wickett, CISSP, GCFW
Twitter: @wickett




On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:52 PM, neil at owasp.org <neil at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucas
>
> 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
> >> hosting OWASP GLOBAL APP SEC EVENTS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_conference_committee/attachments/20101226/6570fc21/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list