[Governance] Transparency Policy

Bil Corry bil.corry at owasp.org
Sat Jun 21 13:01:18 UTC 2014

Hi Dinis,


I am not familiar with nature of the conversations between board members and staff, but my own thought is that email communication that happens outside of a public list should be considered private, as that is the expectation that most people have with email.


If we want board member communication public, then perhaps a new public list can be created that can be copied on for all communication deemed to be public.  Or perhaps new email addresses for the sole purpose of business communication are created.  Otherwise, I'm not sure how to disambiguate private/personal messages from official duty messages, nor how to even provide access to those messages.


Hopefully others will chime in.


As for employee reviews, unless the employee chooses to make it public, it should be confidential.  Requiring the employee to consent to making their performance review public as a condition of employment would have to be reviewed by an attorney – I doubt this is possible, otherwise employers would coerce employees to sign away a variety of rights.


- Bil


From: Dinis Cruz [mailto:dinis.cruz at owasp.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 6:58 AM
To: Bil Corry
Cc: governance at lists.owasp.org
Subject: Re: [Governance] Transparency Policy


Hi Bill, I really like the view that 'The rule of thumb for transparency is to default all information as public,' since that is exactly how I view it.


So for example, where would you put communications between 'OWASP employes with OWASP Board Members' and 'OWASP employees and OWASP Leaders'? Taking the view that all information should be public, there should be very few exchanges between these two groups that would happen in private, right? 


Specially when there are questions or issues being raised that need to be clarified.


For example what happened with Samantha is an explosion of tons of little issues that (in my view) should had been discussed, clarified and defended when they occurred (which would had prevented the drama, loss of an OWASP Employee and strong accusations to the multiple parties).


Another question I have is: "For the cases when a thread starts in private, once the facts are clarified, and unless it falls into one the 3 exceptions listed, the expectation is that such private thread will eventually be made public", right?


Finally, 'where do you put 'employees reviews'? should that be private or public? My view is that any information about OWASP organisation and its staff should be public and on the record (so that it can be peer-reviewed and validated by the OWASP leaders community). This might be something that we will need the employees to agree to, which can/should part of their OWASP contract. 







On 19 June 2014 11:18, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:

Hello Governance,


I am proposing we create (and have the BoD adopt) a policy on transparency to clarify the information that should never be shared publicly.


To that end, I've created an initial draft, which you can find here:




I'm requesting discussion and feedback on the draft, along with additional exclusions (I only started with two).


Thank you for your time in advance,


- Bil

Governance mailing list
Governance at lists.owasp.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140621/4368e6b1/attachment.html>

More information about the Governance mailing list