[Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)

Martin Knobloch martin.knobloch at owasp.org
Tue Feb 25 08:09:16 UTC 2014

Hi Christian,

As I said before, this is the first case and I will have to whole process
been more formalized.

What I am strive for is a transparent and clear process. All communication
and information of this matter, as long no privacy threat is identified,
will be made public during the process or at the end of the investigation.

For the formalized process:

All investigations are in the context of the OWASP Foundation guidelines.
This is in order to investigate abuse, misuse and ignorance of the OWASP
Foundation guidelines and code of ethics. Please see for more information:
The whistle blower policy (
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Governance/Whistleblower_Policy) that is
for a very specific purpose. Please read relevant documentation about US
law, non-profits and whistle blowers if you are interested in more
All statements, references and accusations on personal level, as personal
view on behavior, physical and mental health will be ignored if not
relevant for the case.

#1 clear question, one sentence, to be answered by the investigation.
This to be an answered yes of no.

#2 Extended explanation of the request.
A full text description of the background of event

#3) Additional information
List of supporting information as text, email, websites, blogs that support
the accusation.

#4 If applicable, timeline of events

So your request is to investigate to process of your suspension and
termination to be reviewed.
Could you please share information with me on what basis you ground your

For your case we have now #1:
Is the process of of the suspension and termination in conflict with the
OWASP Foundation Guidelines?
Please let me know if you agree the wording. Even better if you could
provide me information #1 to #4 in your own wording.

I know, this seems cumbersome, but I want to have things as clear as


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:

> Martin,
> Yes I would prefer that others desist from making further comment
> until the root case is resolved.  I would like to acknowledge that
> Dennis has treated me with the upmost respect in the past.
> Please focus on "#1 You request your suspension and termination to be
> reviewed?" as this will in turn resolve #2.
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Knobloch
> <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/04f4a640/attachment.html>

More information about the Governance mailing list