[Global_industry_committee] GIC Chair

Colin Watson colin.watson at owasp.org
Mon Feb 14 16:05:41 EST 2011


Sorry if I missed something at 4pm EST?

But I don't have any objection to this.  Of course we should consider
Lorna's thoughts in this, but maybe the two committees are more
aligned now in any case.

Note: we have 4 or 5 potential new GIC members coming on board shortly
- I need to check their applications' status, but one potential issue
is solved by this - Jerry Hoff seemed to want to be on both
committees.  He might get his wish.

Colin

On 14 February 2011 21:01, Justin Clarke <justin.clarke at owasp.org> wrote:
> Its worth noting that the Connections Committee currently only has one
> real mission - PR/Press contact. If we see this as a role within the
> Industry committee remit I don't have objections (in fact it regains
> us Lorna), but we need to keep it as a focus as OWASP has
> traditionally been bad about coordinating efforts in the area.
>
> Sent from a mobile device
>
> On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:58, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I just hung up (yes I use the phone/skype more than emails for OWASP) with the Global Connections Committee (sounds so official) but after talking to Jim Manico (the connections chair) we have another selfless effort for the good of OWASP and recommendation for consideration at the 4pm EST call today
>>
>> Merge the connections committee into the industry committee.
>>
>> Step#1 look at the list:  http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Committee_Pages  <-- no really its updated.
>>
>> Step#2 we merge Connections Members into Industry Committee
>>
>> Step #3 we eliminate the connections committee on the wiki (quick edit) that has a fuzzy mission (worked great for the Summit)
>>
>> Step #4 we have two NEW members passion filled to help the outreach and progress that bring business and relationships.
>>
>> Please add this to the agenda at the 4pm EST call 800.851.3547 x3738751
>>
>> As one of the topics is a GIC chair, then the members of the committee can vote in the GIC Chair.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Rex Booth wrote:
>>
>>> I think the latter structure is what's needed in order to maximize outreach potential.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't think that structure has an impact on how the chair is chosen.
>>>
>>> On 2/14/2011 11:32 AM, Eoin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be interest in the position which is great as I keep saying "Industry is where OWASP can gain traction".
>>>>
>>>> The individuals whom have expressed interest in the chair role are David Campbell (I may stand corrected here), Rex Booth and Joe Bernik.
>>>>
>>>> We have two options in terms of structure as I believe the committee once empowered by new OWASP bylaws may grow rather large.
>>>> We discussed this in Portugal on Tuesday.....
>>>>
>>>> Option 1: Vote for a new chair, democratic and transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Option 2: Iinstall a chair with overarching responsibility of cross-committee and board communication but also form industry vertical committees represented by individuals from industry: Finance/Banking, Energy, Health, Gov, Transport? etc
>>>> The vertical reps will need to actually be working in these industries but also understand the issues facing their own area of expertise.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>> OWASP Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Code Review Guide Lead Author
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my i-Transmogrifier
>>>> http://asg.ie/
>>>> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>>>
>>
>


More information about the Global_industry_committee mailing list