[Governance] Fwd: Termination - Request for Artifact(s)

Christian Heinrich christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Fri Feb 21 03:02:53 UTC 2014


Michael Coates is showing blatant favouritism to his former employer while
attempting to make me appear "difficult".

Both Justin Derry and I have evaluated my termination proceeding against
the standard set by the Queensland and NSW State Governments related
terminating members within not for profit associations which OWASP would
clearly have followed if the Foundation was incorporated somewhere in

I have asked for the equivalent process defined by the IRS for USA based
Foundations and Sarah has not been forth coming with this information.

A similar request for information has been made by Dinis and Dennis at the
time my termination was announced and more recently by Josh Sokol on the
owasp-board mailing list.

Michael has also been offered the opportunity to state that this artifact
does not exist so that OWASP and I can simply move on because the 24 month
period finished on 9 January 2014.

Can you assist so that the selective judgement of the OWASP Board doesn't
affect the well being of another OWASP member?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Termination - Request for Artifact(s)
To: Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au>
Cc: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org>

It seems you are losing focus and directing attention to other unrelated
topics.  I don't have much else to discuss here. I'd recommend you continue
working with Josh if there are more items to discuss per your other threads
with him.

On Feb 20, 2014 5:15 PM, "Christian Heinrich" <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au>

> Michael,
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> > Below is the email that was sent to you during the event.
> >
> > Your actions on public owasp mailing lists were the problem and in
> violation
> > of our code of ethics. Your activity is all available in the leaders list
> > archives.
> >
> > I'm not sure the goal of this conversation, but hopefully this addresses
> the
> > information you are looking for.
> This is a wide sweeping statement and does not provide the specific
> instance?
> I stand by the opinion that members of the GPC who were employed by Aspect
> Security awarded the tender to SourceForge and subsequently delivered paid
> consultancy on ESAPI.  This is against the code of ethics, specifically "*To
> avoid relationships that impair -- or may appear to impair -- OWASP's
> objectivity and independence.*"
> This matter was discussed on the GPC list prior to presenting the
> conclusion on the OWASP-Leaders List.
> There was no "private" support amongst OWASP Leaders for SourceForge and
> Aspect Security made the same claim that "private" data exists supporting
> the inclusion of A9 in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.
> Chris Schmidt did not become a member of GitHub until 7 October 2012 once
> the contract with SourceForge was terminated due to lack of uptake and
> interest i.e. https://github.com/chris-schmidt where he claimed have
> membership in the e-mail to the Leaders List dated 6 January 2012 (almost
> ten months later).
> Therefore, Chris has undertaken retaliation in relation to a whistle
> blowing activity which is against OWASP Policy.
> You also removed my @owasp.org e-mail address without notice and
> prohibited me from discussing the matter with other OWASP members, which
> you claimed in a subsequent e-mail I had the right to [discuss the matter
> with other OWASP members].
> Please let me know if this accurately reflects the facts of my termination?
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact

Christian Heinrich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/a3b09632/attachment.html>

More information about the Governance mailing list