[Governance] [Owasp-leaders] Request - Survey - Implementation process on higher decisions

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Aug 18 01:56:46 UTC 2015


Johanna,

Once the survey results are in, please attend the next board meeting for 
that month and we will reserve time to discuss the survey results 
together. Converting survey results into actionable change can be 
difficult. And because the changes suggested are fairly big, we might 
need to pull resources from other areas to accomplish these goals.

The other thing to note is, how much money do successful projects really 
need? I manage four OWASP projects and they all pretty much have zero 
funding yet I feel they are successful. Most of the tools we need to 
manage a successful project these days are cheap and free.

So if anyone is saying that they cannot be successful at an OWASP 
projects because they do not have money, I think they are missing the 
point of open source and are not aware of the modern free development 
tools and resources available.

Now Johanna, I still think discussing increased project funding is 
critical, I'm with you! But I state with respect that lack of funds is a 
poor excuse for not being successful at an open source project in 2015.

Let me give you an example.  Jeremy Long runs the Dependency Check 
project, a very amazing tool which earned OWASP Flagship status. I see 
regular check-in's from him super early in the morning because he wakes 
up at the crack of dawn to get some coding time in before he starts his 
day. You can't buy dedication like that. You need to have it in your gut 
- the burning desire to make something happen regardless of the bull$hit 
happening around you. I know of several in our community who have that 
fire. Jeremy. Simon. Abraham Aranguren, Bharadwaj Machiraju, John 
Melton, Colin Watson, Ryan Barnett and many others who just dig in and 
do it.

I honestly think that if anyone working on a OWASP Flagship or Labs 
project needed funding - they should ask about it. I know it's a form, 
but it's like a few drop down menus and a textarea.

Aloha,

-- 
Jim Manico
Global Board Member
OWASP Foundation
https://www.owasp.org
Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!






On 8/17/15 3:31 PM, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
> Josh,
>
> So far I remember , the idea was proposed to the board by you and the 
> board took the decision to implement Committee 2.0. I believe this was 
> done with all good intentions but is not working.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2014-May/011794.html
>
> In this same email Sarah mentions:
> The 2008 committees worked, for the most part, independently of each other.
> This often created duplicate or even conflicting efforts leading to frustration.
> Results now: I'm the only committee called the Project Task 
> Force.Maybe thats why none wants to create anymore committees.
>
> Projects are global. They promote owasp at a global level. What is 
> OWASP known for? for its chapters? Its conferences? I strongly believe 
> OWASP is know for its projects, Code Review, Testing guide, the Cheat 
> Sheets, ASVS, ZAP... Many references in major publications refer to 
> OWASP top ten and respect them because of its projects.PCI  and major 
> vendors use them as reference and guidelines.
>
> I would like to see is a better schema for them to get more awareness, 
> especially people doing great things and because of lack of funds 
> cannot promote their projects. Chapters are rich ,projects are poor. 
> That is in my opinion a huge misbalance.
>
> The limit of USD2,000- for supporting a project leader a year is for 
> most leaders not enough. If a leader outside US or EU is invited to 
> blackhat , that amount is not enough to cover his traveling expenses.  
> And thats the maximum he can have in a year after filling on forms and 
> going through some back-and-forth emails with the staff...
>
>   * Should we scrap projects and focus to be a dedicated conference
>     organisation?...thats what  I see is happening whether consciously
>     or not.
>   * Should we scrap conferences and focus to gather those funds to
>     create a better platforms for projects and become the next Apache
>     foundation?
>   * Should we use crowdsource for gathering funds for projects through
>     the OWASP foundation?
>
>
> I would like to see a solution to this or an action.
>
> Project summits = events . Thats what I'm proposing. That Summits are 
> treated like events to generate money for projects so they have also a 
> fair way to generate money as chapters do. They will depend less from 
> sponsors with commercial intentions.(easier to avoid  Logogate issues 
> and projects with the intention to promote apssec companies). Also 
> more focus on crowdsourcing projects. If people finds it a great idea 
> they will sponsor it.
>
> I will ask the staff to create a survey and ask the community about 
> it. This is my proposal and based on those results I hope and expect 
> the board to take actions.
>
> regards
>
> Johanna
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Mario Robles <mario.robles at owasp.org 
> <mailto:mario.robles at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hey Josh,
>
>     I could be wrong but the term Committee is commonly associated
>     with "bureaucracy" even if it's not what you meant, at least it
>     was the first thing on top of my head, I'm sure if you change the
>     word Committee to something like "Action Team" it would be better
>     accepted
>
>     Just my point view,
>
>     Mario
>
>
>     	
>
>     On 17/08/2015 04:21 p.m., Josh Sokol wrote:
>>
>>         I think we need to create Project Summits in the form of
>>         events with the whole purpose to gather funds for projects
>>
>>
>>     Please forgive my ignorance.  How does a Project Summit generate
>>     funds for project? Every Project Summit that we have had to date
>>     has cost the Foundation money, hasn't it?  Can you please elaborate?
>>
>>         Look, Denver chapter has around 50K in their bucket. The
>>         richest Project is ZAP with 10k... but thats is the
>>         exception. Even worse when you look at chapters outside US or
>>         EU, mine has only USD40 dollars. Most projects have Zero Dollars.
>>
>>
>>     I'm not sure I understand the fixation on what other chapters
>>     have in their bucket.  They have these funds because they worked
>>     hard to obtain them.  In the case of Denver, they ran last year's
>>     AppSecUSA Conference.  Just because they have money in their
>>     account, it doesn't mean that you aren't able to do things with
>>     the $40 you have in your account.  It just means that they have
>>     to use their account funds first before being able to use money
>>     from the Foundation pool while you would need to request funds
>>     from that pool for anything over $40.  Any sort of reallocation
>>     just moves the "ring fenced funds" issue to another account.  The
>>     model of chapters and projects having accounts is not what's
>>     broken here. It's the model of chapters and projects saving their
>>     funds instead of spending them.  This is why I voted "no" on the
>>     Summer of Code initiative.  It was giving money to those who
>>     already had it and not forcing them to spend their funds first. 
>>     In any case, I'm not sure I understand why the amount of money
>>     Denver has in their account has any impact on any other chapter
>>     or project other than themselves.  We have tens of thousands of
>>     dollars allocated by the Foundation to project and chapters on an
>>     annual basis, much of which goes completely unused.  There is
>>     money available at OWASP for those who need it and I have yet to
>>     hear of a situation where someone was told otherwise.
>>
>>         Yes but how do they know where to go, that's why the survey.
>>         The survey is the compass. And the leaders are elected to
>>         listed to the community.
>>
>>
>>     I agree with this notion.  The OWASP Board should act in
>>     accordance with the desires of the community and should be doing
>>     frequent checks to confirm that initiatives are aligned.
>>
>>         So the committee concept in theory seemed like a great idea
>>         but in practice is not working because in my eyes, creating a
>>         committee is creating a mini board inside OWASP.
>>
>>
>>     To be honest, I have been surprised by the lack of desire to
>>     participate in OWASP Committees.  The community has said that
>>     they want empowerment and the goal of the committees was to do
>>     that.  But, now that it's there, nobody wants it?  Your example
>>     with John Lita follows the Committees 2.0 process almost
>>     verbatim.  The only difference is that it provides scoping to
>>     ensure that we don't have competing, or even worse, conflicting
>>     initiatives and it specifies that the individuals involved need
>>     to work within that scope.  Without it, you have a loosely knit
>>     group of people running around with their own individual
>>     initiatives.  At that level, OWASP is just a funding source for
>>     experimentation, not a Foundation.  There is no accountability,
>>     but the liability on the Foundation is still there. Legally, we
>>     can't just have people running around spending money without any
>>     form of guidance.
>>
>>          Allow me  and let the staff know that they should support me
>>         and any other volunteers seeking for implementing their ideas
>>         ;-).
>>         Lets cut the red tape with committees and let people know
>>         that if they want to do something,
>>
>>           * Contact the staff.
>>           * Set a survey and gather support
>>           * Need more money? Set a crowd funding project @
>>             https://www.kickstarter.com under OWASP
>>           * Volunteers implement idea or project with the support of
>>             owasp staff and other volunteers
>>
>>     I'm not sure how this is that much different from a Committee. 
>>     Contact the community via the mailing list and gather support,
>>     scope the activities (ie. define the project), Board ensures that
>>     there's no conflict, do your thing.  The "red tape" that you keep
>>     referring to is just a process document that walks you through
>>     how to set up a committee.  After that's done, the idea was to
>>     empower you to act within the defined scope without going to the
>>     Board. If we're talking specifically about projects, which it
>>     sounds like this is geared towards, then it's even easier. 
>>     Register as a project (so that staff knows you exist and can
>>     support you) and do your thing.  If you need money, ask for it. 
>>     I'm not sure I see the problem here. I'm also not sure what
>>     you're asking for as it doesn't seem that different to me than
>>     how the status quo is supposed to operate.  Is it operating
>>     differently in practice than it should in theory?  I don't have
>>     an OWASP project and so perhaps I'm blind to the realities.  If
>>     so, then the specific issues need to be addressed by bylaw
>>     change, policy change, staff engagement, etc.  So far, all you've
>>     said is "projects need money", which you have access to, and "cut
>>     the red tape", of which I don't see anything more than a step to
>>     say "Hey, I want to be a project".  Please help me to understand.
>>
>>     ~josh
>>
>>     On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:04 PM, johanna curiel curiel
>>     <johanna.curiel at owasp.org <mailto:johanna.curiel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>          >I don't think there is anything preventing a project from
>>         doing the same, but I haven't seen it done at this point.
>>
>>         I think we need to create Project Summits in the form of
>>         events with the whole purpose to gather funds for projects
>>         .Open samm has done this and I think we can try that. Fo that
>>         we need the support of the staff Business liaison, Event
>>         manager, just as they put their work and efforts in Events
>>         and appsecs. Here cut share between OWASp staff time and
>>         projects can also be done.
>>
>>          >OWASP has a project funding bucket.
>>         Look, Denver chapter has around 50K in their bucket. The
>>         richest Project is ZAP with 10k... but thats is the
>>         exception. Even worse when you look at chapters outside US or
>>         EU, mine has only USD40 dollars. Most projects have Zero Dollars.
>>         And the limits right now are a support but do not help to get
>>         important things moving like OWASP Academy portal, Leaders
>>         like Azzedine assist and show case his chapter or project or
>>         other more complex initiatives. Or major improvements or
>>         promotions to their projects.
>>
>>           >Remember that the Board is just a handful of leaders who
>>         were elected to set the compass.
>>           Yes but how do they know where to go, that's why the
>>         survey. The survey is the compass. And the leaders are
>>         elected to listed to the community.
>>
>>         And About committees...
>>         The only existing active committee right now is the Project
>>         Review (which I still call myself a taskforce). I haven't see
>>         much initiatives or participation from other committees. So
>>         the committee concept in theory seemed like a great idea but
>>         in practice is not working because in my eyes, creating a
>>         committee is creating a mini board inside OWASP. We do not
>>         want to create oligarchies in the end.
>>
>>           I thik we should cut off that comitee idea and be more
>>         practical. More like this
>>
>>           Example:
>>
>>           * John Lita wants to create an academy portal but
>>             developing it costs money and resources that volunteers
>>             alone cannot be easy pull off(owaspa project was the same
>>             and died, just like many educational initiatives)
>>           * John must create a proposal with defined goals and how to
>>             reach them. He joins other volunteers in this effort. No
>>             need to be a commitee.
>>           *  John & Claudia create a survey and seek support of the
>>             community
>>           *   If the idea has major feedback and volunteers, then
>>             John has the support from the staff to execute including
>>             looking for sponsors using crowdsource funding portals
>>           * Staff monitors development and results of the actions taken
>>           * Staff reports results to the community back
>>
>>         This is in my eyes how I have been working in the end,
>>         because , as volunteers, available time mostly depends on one
>>         or 2 passionate individuals like John-Lita, which are more
>>         dedicated and the rest follows...
>>
>>         Now if we want to change things, don't tell me to set a
>>         committee, because Josh , this has not work so far.
>>
>>          Allow me  and let the staff know that they should support me
>>         and any other volunteers seeking for implementing their ideas
>>         ;-).
>>         Lets cut the red tape with committees and let people know
>>         that if they want to do something,
>>
>>           * Contact the staff.
>>           * Set a survey and gather support
>>           * Need more money? Set a crowd funding project @
>>             https://www.kickstarter.com under OWASP
>>           * Volunteers implement idea or project with the support of
>>             owasp staff and other volunteers
>>
>>         How do we get this idea to action?
>>         Shall we create a survey?
>>         Do you need to discuss this on a board meeting?
>>         How do I get empowered and let the staff know that as a
>>         volunteer I have your support for this?(if I do?
>>
>>         You see...how dependable I'm from the board to be able to
>>         execute?
>>
>>         Off course I can always do this on my own but them I better
>>         do it without OWASP...
>>
>>         Regards
>>
>>         Johanna
>>
>>         On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Josh Sokol
>>         <josh.sokol at owasp.org <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>             Johanna,
>>
>>             Thank you for putting your thoughts out there for
>>             everyone. Silence is not good for anyone and OWASP will
>>             be far more successful if we know what our leaders are
>>             struggling with and make a conscious effort to improve
>>             it.  I think that many of your points are very valid and
>>             strongly support the idea of polls to gauge community
>>             support for actions being taken.  I also support the idea
>>             that the Board should be making as few of these decisions
>>             as possible and putting the power back in the hands of
>>             the community with support from the staff.  The Board
>>             should be the "compass" making sure that we are moving in
>>             the right direction with the community and staff being
>>             the ones actually pushing us forward.  That's not to say
>>             that members of the Board won't have their own projects
>>             or initiatives, but they do so as part of the community,
>>             not because of their roles on the Board.  The Committees
>>             2.0 framework was a first step in driving this level of
>>             empowerment back to the community while maintaining
>>             accountability and providing appropriately scoped
>>             actions. My impression was that the Projects Committee
>>             was rolling forward quite well under this guidance, but
>>             it sounds like maybe I was wrong.  Are there specific
>>             actions that you have tried to take on the committee that
>>             got blocked by the Board or hung up in "red tape"? Are
>>             there needs for funding that haven't been met?
>>
>>             Regarding the project vs chapter funding schemas, I'm not
>>             sure that there is a good answer. Projects are typically
>>             made up of a pocket of individuals. Typically one leader
>>             with sometimes one or two others assisting.  Chapters are
>>             typically anywhere from 20 people to hundreds. We provide
>>             members with the ability to allocate their funds to
>>             either, but most associate themselves with a chapter
>>             rather than a project because that's where they
>>             participate.  We also have chapters putting on
>>             conferences with the goal of raising funds.  I don't
>>             think there is anything preventing a project from doing
>>             the same, but I haven't seen it done at this point. Those
>>             are the two main ways that I see chapters raising money. 
>>             Yes, there is certainly a difference in schemas and
>>             projects will have a more difficult time, but that's also
>>             why OWASP has a project funding bucket. Money from these
>>             local events as well as funds raised by our AppSec
>>             conferences gets budgeted specifically for this purpose. 
>>             To my knowledge, no reasonable request for funds by
>>             projects has been denied.  Just because there isn't money
>>             sitting "ring fenced" in an account for the projects,
>>             doesn't mean that there isn't money that can be spent. 
>>             It just means that it needs to be requested from the
>>             pool.  Yes, it's a different model of funding, but the
>>             end result is the same. There are funds available at
>>             OWASP for everyone who needs them.
>>
>>             There are obviously many things that need to be improved
>>             at OWASP and, unfortunately, the Board has been tied up
>>             in rules, events, bylaws, etc for a while now.  It's
>>             definitely not the "fun" part of the job and it is very
>>             time consuming.  That said, I would argue that these are
>>             the things that need to be changed in order for everyone
>>             else (staff, community, etc) to be able to be better
>>             served.  We've made several changes to the Bylaws and are
>>             working on more.  We've hired an Executive Director
>>             (Paul), an Event Manager (Laura), a Community Manager
>>             (Noreen), and a Project Coordinator (Claudia) just in the
>>             almost two years that I've been on the Board.  The needle
>>             on the compass is set and, while it takes some time to
>>             right the ship, we are getting there by giving our
>>             community the support it requires to be successful.  So,
>>             here's my general thought:
>>
>>             1) If it's within the scope of a defined Committee, JUST
>>             DO IT!
>>
>>             2) If there's no Committee defined for it, CREATE ONE,
>>             then JUST DO IT!
>>
>>             3) If a Committee doesn't make sense, ASK THE STAFF FOR IT!
>>
>>             4) If asking the staff isn't working or we need to change
>>             a policy to make it happen, LET THE BOARD KNOW!
>>
>>             The Board should be the last resort, in my opinion, not
>>             the first.  We should be the enabler, not the
>>             bottleneck.  I think that our leaders make too many
>>             assumptions (probably based on past Board actions) about
>>             what needs to go to the Board and we need to get away
>>             from that.  Remember that the Board is just a handful of
>>             leaders who were elected to set the compass.  We have a
>>             finite number of things that we can handle and our Board
>>             meetings are typically overflowing with topics.  So, if
>>             something is bothering you, I would encourage you to
>>             change it.  That's why, with the David Rook situation, I
>>             encouraged creation of a new Committee to determine a
>>             reasonable solution.  If it requires a policy change by
>>             the Board, then we can vote on that, but asking the Board
>>             to take action just perpetuates the oligarchy that you
>>             mention in your e-mail.  Instead of pushing these issues
>>             up to the Board for action, let's have the community
>>             DECIDE what they want and have the Board change the
>>             compass needle via bylaws, policies, and staff
>>             discussions, accordingly. At least, that's my vision for
>>             OWASP.  Is that something that you can get on board with?
>>
>>             ~josh
>>
>>             On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:11 AM, johanna curiel curiel
>>             <johanna.curiel at owasp.org
>>             <mailto:johanna.curiel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>                 Members of the board,
>>
>>                 With the recent issue regarding David Rook, and my
>>                 latest experience with red-tape, I'm proposing the
>>                 following.
>>
>>                 My goals is to call your attention to these issues
>>                 which I have been observing for a years and not as a
>>                 critique to your work, but I think if you do not pay
>>                 attention to these issues and DO something about
>>                 them, OWASP will loose valuable community participation.
>>
>>                   * When an initiative is proposed or launched by a
>>                     member of the board, this should be followed up
>>                     by a survey where the community can vote.Wether
>>                     is a rule or money, these decisions should be
>>                     taken based on collected data and proper
>>                     substantiation to avoid oligarchy
>>                   * When an initiative is launched by a member of the
>>                     community, especially when this initiative cost
>>                     more than 10k, it should be substantiated with
>>                     data how this initiative will benefit the
>>                     community. Also should be followed by a survey
>>                   * Staff should help creating the survey and analyse
>>                     the votes
>>                   * *In other words: do more survey to find out what
>>                     the community needs and wants.*
>>
>>                 My observations and where I think you need to give
>>                 more attention:
>>
>>                   * Board/Executive director should work closer with
>>                     the staff for guidance and empowering their role.
>>                     I have the feeling that the staff is paralysed
>>                     waiting for instructions or following strict
>>                     rules. The staff should be motivated to take
>>                     initiative and implement projects on their own
>>                     that can help the community. They should not be
>>                     too dependent on an Executive director or member
>>                     of the board for this part
>>
>>                 As I see it ,OWASP is known for his Projects &
>>                 Chapter leaders which as volunteers have contributed
>>                 the most to set OWASP on the spotlight. Therefore:
>>
>>                   * You should determine and implement better ways
>>                      to provide better funding schemas for projects .
>>                     This is something a volunteer cannot do. And
>>                     /nothing/ has been done to help  solve this issue
>>                   * There is an unfair inequality in the way chapters
>>                     can generate funds vs Projects.
>>                   * Money is locked down in the chapters budget
>>                   * Chapters outside US & EU have more struggles to
>>                     find support. You should consider a way to
>>                     support better these ones since their countries
>>                     are not developed in the area of security as
>>                     countries in EU and US.
>>                   * Follow up: when issues like David Rook or a
>>                     volunteer rants(like me or others ) out of
>>                     frustation, take action. Put it in the agenda and
>>                     try to solve and discuss the issues to improve
>>                     the actual problems. So far I have seen very
>>                     little follow up on major issues and discussions
>>                     raised in the mailing lists
>>                   * Way to much attention to rules, /events/ and
>>                     bylaws etc. Time to take action and take
>>                     decisions and propose plans for improvements of
>>                     the actual situation above mentioned
>>
>>                 Being that said, and with all due respect to you, I
>>                 hope that you can take actions and /execute/
>>                 improvements that have been an issue since I joined
>>                 OWASP 3 years ago.
>>
>>
>>                 Regards
>>
>>
>>                 Johanna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 Governance mailing list
>>                 Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>                 <mailto:Governance at lists.owasp.org>
>>                 https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>     OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "OWASP Projects Task Force" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to projects-task-force+unsubscribe at owasp.org 
> <mailto:projects-task-force+unsubscribe at owasp.org>.
> To post to this group, send email to projects-task-force at owasp.org 
> <mailto:projects-task-force at owasp.org>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/projects-task-force/CACxry_2s%3DM%2BeEDxbGZNj-4ZLtYfxuAwU4wwLKHsuZ5ogB%3DNd7w%40mail.gmail.com 
> <https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/projects-task-force/CACxry_2s%3DM%2BeEDxbGZNj-4ZLtYfxuAwU4wwLKHsuZ5ogB%3DNd7w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150817/9d9e752e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Governance mailing list