[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Sun Feb 23 23:49:00 UTC 2014
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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 a revoked member, and have rescinded your request for reinstatement, you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.
No, I never asked for a speaking slot at AppSecEU neither do I claim that
the OWASP Code of Ethics do not apply to me and that's entrapment as the
correct course of action would be to seek agreement to your proposed
conditions prior to floating them past the OWASP Board just as Martin had
offered me a "private" call in the first instance rather than escalating
straight to a recorded conference call.
Let me know when Chris Gatford et al grant permission to release their
recording and I will grant you the same right? Until then, permission *is
not granted to release the recording* and neither was I informed that their
eventual intended purpose was for a public record beyond that of the OWASP
Board so your *agenda is clearly entrapment*. I will repeat the offer
granting OWASP the right to release the recording of any future conference
The period of 24 months has lapsed and I am no longer an OWASP Member, I am
therefore submitting the as a member of the public. So yes under those
circumstances I have meet the requirement of the Membership Revocation and
the only reason the OWASP Board would continue to oppose this is to censor
further contact with OWASP members so that they don't reach the conclusion
as *Helen Goa of the GMC that the termination is highly questionable and
deferred to Michael*. This is why OWASP China which was formed by *Helen
Goa invited me to present at their event on the OWASP Top Ten*.
The omission in the above is that I can attend Chapter Events.
Josh, please desist from promoting your agenda which is clearly destructive
as it is quite clear that you attempted to build rapport and appear fair in
order to promote the view that I am unreasonable.
I offered the OWASP Board an alternative to recorded conference call to
resolve this issue and yet that was refused. The "kicker" being that the
OWASP Board could have stated "well we did it your way Christian so you
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Governance