[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)
josh.sokol at owasp.org
Sat Feb 22 03:36:08 UTC 2014
*I do not grant permission for the two interviews to be published to the
public record. Neither was I ever informed that their distribution was for
the public record and I requested that I *not* be recorded and any consent
given is inducement. You are more than welcome to schedule an interview
for on the record comment provided a list of question are agreed upon
This is fine. My statement in each of the calls was that they were being
recorded to preserve evidence on behalf of both yourself and OWASP and the
contents would be provided to other Board members and our Executive
Director in order to assist with your request for reinstatement. The
questions I asked were provided to you before the call with one exception
that I offered you not to answer if you so chose. You did, in fact, agree
to the recording of the call (your consent is recorded). Your claims of
inducement are baseless as you were given the option as to whether you
wanted to proceed or not. There were no threats held over your head other
than it needed to be recorded in order to obtain evidence for your request
for reinstatement and no recording meant no evidence. It would have been
pointless. So, to be clear, the recordings will absolutely be used by the
Board in our decision making process. We will not make the recordings
public, per your request, but it will be made clear that the Board
considered additional evidence that you requested not be made public in
making our decision.
My original offer to assist was to try to obtain evidence so that I could
make an informed decision on your request for reinstatement. Along the
way, I did recognize that the Google Hacking Inquiry no longer served the
purpose that it once did and I am happy to aide in having it removed so
that you may move on with your life. All of this other stuff that you are
saying, all of the requests to pursue people based on allegations from
years ago, I cannot support. My goal was to find a peaceful resolution
between yourself and OWASP. I offered two plans that both received support
from those outside of the Board, but it is clear that your quest for
"justice" stands in the way of any attempts for a peaceful resolution.
Thus, as I stated previously, I believe that our paths have diverged and I
am incapable of aiding you going forward. I thank you for taking the time
to engage me both in e-mail and over the phone and feel that I now have
enough information to make an informed decision on the subject. I did
request your additional supporting sources, to make sure I was as thorough
as possible, but as you never provided these to me I'm afraid I will have
to make due with the data that you have provided to me. Feel free to pass
those on if you feel so inclined, but otherwise, I don't think we have
anything else to discuss. I wish you all the best, Christian.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
> I would to formally request that you to undertake an independent
> review of my suspension and termination from OWASP.
> The focus and scope will be on the within the e-mail I recently sent
> to this [governance] mailing list and I have highlighted the major
> points within
> (bolding may not render correctly as the e-mail was HTML).
> I have no intention to rejoin OWASP until this matter is resolved but
> I would like to participate as a member of the public and speak at
> https://2014.appsec.eu/ and the OWASP Board have declared that in
> light of the exclusion lapsing in January this will continue
> indefinitely and therefore I am excluded from presenting at this
> Therefore, I don't want this drag out like the Inquiry Google Hacking
> Project which should have taken "a few hours work" at most.
> Is this timeline reasonable to you?
> The issue related to SourceForge vs GitHub is secondary and I have
> tendered the evidence that infers that Aspect Security sought to offer
> their commercial services to SourceForge during the tender issued by
> the OWASP GPC.
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Martin Knobloch
> <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> > Just to makes things clear, you do email me as in my role of compliance /
> > whistle blower officer?
> > Please state clearly if this request to me as in my obligation of the
> > mentioned, or as fellow OWASP member!
> > Some parts of your email are not clear to me. Excuse if this is caused my
> > level of understanding the English language, I am not a native speaker as
> > you know.
> > Therefore, I have to first ask you some questions, for me to fully
> > understand your request:
> > What is in your opinion the relation of the "Queensland and NSW State
> > Governments" regulations?
> > As OWASP is not incorporated in Australia, I wonder about the relevance.
> > With other words, do you suggest OWASP has to follow regulations outside
> > the US?
> > What does IRS stands for?
> > In what view is the request of for information by Dinis, Dennis and Josh
> > refer to, relevant?
> > I fail to understand to point of this reference
> > What artifact does not exist you refer to by "Michael has also been
> > the opportunity to state that this artifact does not exist..."?
> > But most importantly, what it your request?
> > I fail to understand your question:
> > "Can you assist so that the selective judgement of the OWASP Board
> > affect the well being of another OWASP member?"
> > Could you rephrase your question please?
> > Please understand, I am asking this in order to fully understand your
> > If you prefer, we can schedule a call in private!
> Christian Heinrich
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Governance