[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Mon Feb 24 00:39:11 UTC 2014
The root cause of this entire issue is that had Dinis Cruz provided me with
complaint by Andre Ludwig i.e.
elected to investigate Chris Gatford of the OWASP Sydney Chapter as the
"unverified sources" then this entire issue would have been resolved
without the long term damage to my career and standing within the security
community in which Chris Gatford has subsequently formed relationship with
at the exclusion OWASP i.e. RUXCON, AusCERT, AISA, etc.
As a matter of fact, the OWASP Google Hacking Inquiry states that the
issues related to the Sydney Chapter are to be considered separately yet
the Global Project Committee overstepped it's scope and lied in this
"expel" is also correlated to a tweet made a "sock puppet" of Chris
I met Mark at the OWASP Conference in Australia in 2008 and he was very
supportive of my research at that time and this lead me to contribute to
the OWASP Testing Guide and what would become the OWASP Google Hacking
Project. In hindsight, I regret dismissing their advice and should have
contributed this body of work into the OWASP Testing Guide independent of
OWASP [Project] and associating my "public" name to OWASP.
No doubt, Mark in light of his prior public criticisms against OWASP would
be allowed back without having to undertake the same drawn out process that
Josh is inflicting upon me.
I apologies for how I acted just prior to and since the OWASP Google
Hacking Inquiry but the fact is when I have attempted to contribute to
OWASP in a positive manner I have continued to be treated with suspicion
and contempt as a direct result of the "inconclusive" OWASP Google Hacking
Inquiry and no one within OWASP wants to give me the benefit of the doubt.
The OWASP Board does not want to offer me an "exit" and would accept my
resignation from OWASP with a "clean" record at the conclusion of the OWASP
Google Hacking Inquiry so I can return to the life in Australia I had prior
to my involvement with OWASP.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
> Let me clarify my writing also:
> I said "When I founded OWASP" however, this was a figure of speech - to
be very, very clear I alone did not found OWASP!
> Mark Curphey & Myself along with *many, many* others worked together to
bring it into existence (apologies to the many unnamed who participated).
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
>> The "O" in open as I intended it at the founding - was "O" Open
Consumption = eg anybody may consume owasp materials without restriction.
It was also "O" open as in governing transparency because I believe that
opacity is a necessary condition for corruption; thus transparency is the
most efficacious treatment against corruption.
>> It was not "O" open to participate, "O" open to lead. At least not in
the way that I perceive people talking about it.
>> Mark and I would "weed the garden" of participants in the early days
from people who caused allergic reactions within the community...
>> We need capable leaders with a vision who can rally the community around
that vision and those whom rise to that challenge have a duty of
transparency as their influence becomes governance.
>> This is similar to the idea of 'soft-security' on a wiki. If the
community has an allergic reaction to you Christian - there is nothing I
nor anybody other than you can do about it. You alone must choose to comply
or not with the community wishes. You are still free to consume OWASP
publications and projects.
>> I find this all to be a very disturbing and unfortunate series of
miss-communications and escalations that have oscillated to the point where
an alternative steady state has already been reached.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Governance