[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Sun Feb 23 02:49:19 UTC 2014


Christian,

If you do, indeed, believe that I did not follow the script, then you have
nothing to lose by making the recording public.  The only reason why you
refuse to do so is because you know that you are wrong.  And, to be
perfectly clear, I did not come away from the call with the view that you
were unreasonable.  I actually came away from that asking the Board to
consider allowing you back in.  You showed that you were unreasonable when
you asked for a speaking slot at the AppSecEU conference and claimed that
the OWASP Code of Ethics should not apply to you.  Regarding the
conference, "A revoked member is disqualified from participating in OWASP
CFPs and from speaking at a Global or regional AppSec conference as well as
chapter meetings for a period not less than 24 months" (
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Membership_Revocation)  As you are still a
revoked member, and have rescinded your request for reinstatement, you are
ineligible for the AppSecEU CFP.

~josh


On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:

> Josh,
>
> 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:
> >
> > Christian,
> >
> > 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:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJAFF9UwUBKi-ulAGLkqytsulQX8mLKjCqQrwwNlwRM/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
>
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/b72b5354/attachment.html>


More information about the Governance mailing list