[Governance] Request - Survey - Implementation process on higher decisions
jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Aug 18 02:25:54 UTC 2015
My understanding is that the current Committee 2.0 process was born from
the link you just sent. We debated and voted on the final committee
structure and Josh posted it here in July 2014.
The board or staff would like to get involved when contracts are being
signed on behalf of the OWASP Foundation, which I think is sensible. Do
you think we should change this to a community vote? That would
significantly reduce the empowerment of committees.... Or do you want to
board to stop voting on things and have a community vote on all
board-level issues instead?
Anyhow, here is the current relevant committee voting structure. I think
this is a pretty sensible balance.
As the goal of this proposal is the empower our leaders to be able to
take action on behalf of the organization, no Board vote is necessary
for any initiative of the committee provided that the following is true:
1) The action is within the stated scope of the committee.
2) If money is required, the action follows the guidelines set forth in
the Community Engagement Funding document.
3) No contracts are being executed by the committee on behalf of the
4) The action is in line with the OWASP Foundation Code of Ethics and is
pursuant to OWASP’s mission.
If any of these is not true, then the OWASP Board of Directors should be
consulted for approval prior to the committees execution.
> I found something very interesting we have not done and was written on
> that Sarah's email regarding committees:
> *Proposals brought forward from the committees should be voted upon by
> the community *(or community leadership). The_community decision_ should be
> considered valid. Implementing a process for a trial period of 6 months to
> a year would be sufficient to determine if it was beneficial for the
> organization. This also reinstates the sense of ownership the community has
> in the organisation.
> That counts for all the initiatives, from project summits to Summers
> and Winters of code...
> We have not implemented to allow the community to vote.
> I agree about your comments about projects, but I will provide you a
> better example. There are projects that can participate and are
> invited to Conferences and due to money issues cannot assist to more
> of them. Or the recent issue with the Developer guide. You need to pay
> a technical editor and designer to get the project ready.
> Some Educational initiatives are harder to implement and might require
> crowd funding. It is about looking for better structure and ways to
> support and promote projects for educational initiatives.
> Keep in mind that the motive of this email is about community vote and
> surveys to gather what does the community want.
> Subject: "Request - Survey - Implementation process on higher decisions".
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
> Now seriously.Why can these funds not be moved?
> We made a promise in 2009, Tom sent those exact links out to to
> leaders earlier today.
> What are the actual restrictions for chapters to use them?
> We've gone over that many times in the last few weeks, I'll send
> you those resources offline. The staff is actively trying to
> educate and encourage chapters to spend their resources on the
> OWASP mission.
> Jim Manico
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
Global Board Member
Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Governance