[Global_conference_committee] Chapter Revenue Share From OWASP events

Ralph Durkee ralph.durkee at owasp.org
Mon Dec 27 03:55:12 EST 2010


I agree we are making a serious mistake here, it discussing very
different events. 

>> It says nothing about allowing chapters build their revenue through
>> hosting OWASP GLOBAL APP SEC EVENTS.

Most of the discussion examples tend to rely heavily on Global AppSec
conferences as events, while the model and rules were discussing are
being applied to all conference events.  I think OWASP events initiated
at the chapter level should follow the same revenue sharing rules as the
membership revenue, for the same reasons we do the membership sharing.  
I'm less familiar with the behind the scenes organization and work for
the Global AppSec conferences, but having a cap and a different model
probably makes sense for these conferences. 

--Ralph


On 12/26/2010 11:48 PM, James Wickett wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:neil at owasp.org> <neil at owasp.org <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:john.wilander at owasp.org>>
>     Cc: <alison.shrader at owasp.org <mailto:alison.shrader at owasp.org>>,
>     "global_conference_committee"
>     <global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/20101227/ff5f333c/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Global_conference_committee mailing list