[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)

Martin Knobloch martin.knobloch at owasp.org
Mon Feb 24 10:22:24 UTC 2014


Christian,

Please apologize if I have not been clear.

I do not handle matters with initial and later scope. A request should
include a single request that can be answered in binary true or false. For
what I tried to clarify is your request and scope.

Let me rephrase what I understood and let me know which one of the below is
correct:
#1 You request your suspension and termination to be reviewed?
#2 You request your exclusion to an OWASP event to be reviewed?

As I find 'in text answers' very cumbersome, therefore I want to ask you
not to do so. Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
-martin

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:

> Martin,
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM,  <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > For clarification:
> > #1: You want to have the process of your suspension and termination
> reviewed.
> > #2: the exclusion to OWASP event, in result of the suspension.
> > #2a: the exclusion was to end by january 2014
> > #2b:  the exclusion has extended, as you have been refused to visit and
> speak
> > at OWASP events
>
> For the initial scope can we focus on #1 above please?
>
> I have excluded #2a/b as these items will be negated if the evidence
> related to #1 is not contested by the OWASP Board.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM,  <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > To summarise:
> > the outcome of the investigation should clarify if the exclusion of
> participation
> > at OWASP events justified against OWASP policies.
> > Whereby the participation is in form as a public, non OWASP member.
> > Exclusion of a public speaker at an public OWASP event.
>
> The overwhelming evidence supports the view that I can speak during
> https://2014.appsec.eu/call-for-training-call-for-papers-january/ as a
> member of the public since the revocation finished in January 2014 that
> would have unfairly prohibited me from speaking at an OWASP Conference.
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM,  <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > As 'out of scope' you state:
> > #1:  The possibilities of rejoining the OWASP community.
> > #2: The Google Hacking project inquiries.
>
> In relation to #1 I have deferred the vote on my membership reinstatement
> if overturned by "*#1: You want to have the process of your suspension
> and termination reviewed.*"
>
> I will issue a separate request related to #2.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM,  <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > About the time line you suggest, I am not sure at this moment about  the
> deadline for the CFP
> > for the AppSec-Eu 2014.
> > As this is the first case and the history of this, I cannot promise any
> dead line.
> > Nevertheless, I will do my best for the means of quality and time for
> the investigation.
>
> No problem,  I believe this will only become an issue if the OWASP Board
> vote on
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2014-February/013230.htmlwithout the prior consideration of the deferred OWASP membership
> reinstatement
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
>
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140224/2c63ae63/attachment.html>


More information about the Governance mailing list