[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Sun Feb 23 02:29:54 UTC 2014
You can't claim to have an open society that at the same time doesn't
hold people to account. Therefore, the "O" is "Open[ for business]"
and you threatened to release my recording without permission while
implying that I have something to hide.
I have never attacked anyone and both you and Jim independently
concluded that I was deliberately attacked without provocation as a
result of the OWASP Google Hacking Inquiry which deliberately excluded
the audit of the Sydney Chapter which would have revealed the identity
of the "unverified sources".
As I have already stated you didn't follow and script or ask questions
during the conference call as your intent was to seek more information
than required and capture distress and anger to portray the view that
I am unreasonable.
The OWASP Board has a well documented history of making things up on
the spot and fabricating evidence.
If this was not the case then you agree that I present at OWASP EU
2014 and attend OWASP Chapter Meetings without restriction? A yes/no
response is all that is required.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, while the "O" in OWASP most certainly applies to me, others have a right to their own privacy and it is not my place to invade upon it. Just as I have continued to allow you to hold the decision on whether your evidence is made public, I will do the same for the others who have come forth. The communications have been forwarded along to the Board for review with their approval, but it was specifically requested that this not become a matter of public record out of fear of retaliation by you. Given your past tendencies to attack those who disagree with you, I believe this is a legitimate concern. Yes, you have made this request in the past, and yes, I refuse your request yet again on the grounds that providing you with this material will lead to you attacking those who have specifically asked not to be identified. I would, however, be happy to provide this documentation to Martin if he so desires.
> Christian, if I could summarize your "situation" into a series of yes/no questions, I most certainly would. Unfortunately, you are the single most complicated person I have ever come across. That said, I did give you the opportunity to generate your own questions and you elected not do so. If you wanted yes/no questions you could have had them. That is your fault, not mine. Are you saying that the questions which I copied and pasted verbatum from my e-mail are not the questions that I asked you? Here is my "script" that I used for our conversation:
> Now, I will say that I felt that you sufficiently answered some questions without me asking them so I opted to move on, but this is EXACTLY what we covered. Any place in our conversation where you stated something was either in direct response to my question or of your own volition. I have nothing to hide and have stated that I am more than happy to release our conversations to the public to decide.
> As for http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2014-February/013230.html, this will not be applied to you retroactively. This is meant to ensure that we do not have this same situation occur again in the future. For you, Christian, our policy states "A revoked member will not be allowed to reapply for membership for a period not less than 24 months. The revoked member has the option to then reapply for membership with reinstatement pending approval by the board." The Board has neither approved nor denied your request for reinstatement at this time. At this time, you have rescinded your request for reinstatement so there is nothing for us to discuss here.
More information about the Governance