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

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Tue Aug 18 16:08:14 UTC 2015


Johanna,

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.
>

Actually, I would argue that even though there's only a single committee
right now, it is working exactly as intended.  The truth is that OWASP's
leadership sits somewhere in-between an Oligarchy (as you describe it) and
an Anarchy.  We're currently somewhere between Democracy and Ochlocracy
depending on the topic if you really want to get technical.  In any case,
what you need to realize is that somebody needs to have the power to make
decisions or decisions will never get made and we veer into Anarchy.  What
Committees 2.0 did is specify that decision making power starts with the
Board as they have the fiduciary responsibility for the OWASP Foundation in
all legal sense.  What it also did is allow any of our leaders to carve out
a piece of that power that they are passionate about and run with it, just
as you did with projects.  I really thought that we would see some other
committees pop up similar to what we had before in other core areas of
OWASP like Governance or Chapters, but the fact that there isn't just tells
me that as of yet, no leader is passionate enough about it to carve out
that power.  Maybe it's because of time commitments or because of some
perceived "red tape" or even (I hope) because most people think the Board
is doing an OK job making decisions, but the fact is that the ability is
there and you are an example of it being used.  So, as I said, the system
is working.  Where this is a void in the community wanting to take the
power to make decisions, the Board fills that void.  In other words, if the
community really thinks that they can do something better than the Board,
they can form a Committee (or "Action Team" or "Initiative" or whatever
they want to call it), and do it.

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.
>

There is no doubt in my mind that Projects are important for OWASP.  They
spread our mission in places where even our Chapters cannot go.  But, if
you want to talk about where most people interface with OWASP, it's not
projects, it's Chapters.  You won't find a reference in a major publication
to the OWASP Austin Chapter, for example, but we held a CryptoParty in
January and invited members of our community, the media, etc to participate
because we wanted to educate others on the importance of privacy.  You're
passionate about OWASP Projects, I get that, and I love it.  I'm passionate
about OWASP Chapters.  Neither should be trivialized as they both play a
very important role within OWASP.

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.
>

We have many chapters with small bank accounts, some even negative, and a
few with quite large accounts.  Total it all up and it's a pretty decent
sum of money.  But, what you're arguing for here is effectively Socialism.
You're saying that it doesn't matter that the OWASP chapter in Denver
busted their ass (it is over a year's worth of effort by a team of people)
to put on last year's AppSecUSA Conference.  It doesn't matter that it can
cost a chapter hundreds if not thousands of dollars to rent meeting space,
bring in food, fly in speakers, etc.  You only see that they have money,
you do not, and you want it.  Not because you have a plan to spend it
either, because if you did you could simply ask the Foundation for it, but
because it is perceived as being disproportionate.  There is no payoff for
OWASP's mission if we rob from the rich, give to the poor, and at the end
of the day still just have money sitting in a savings account.  This
highlights the underlying issue here.  The issue is not that Chapters or
Projects HAVE money.  The issue is that they have money and are NOT
SPENDING IT to further the OWASP Mission.  Thus, the approach to fix this
issue (and I agree that it's an issue) shouldn't be to take away their
money, it should be to get them to spend it.

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...
>

Ahhhhh, finally we get to the root of the issue.  The issue isn't that
money isn't available, because, frankly, we had a significant amount of
money budgeted last year that wasn't used.  The issue is that there is a
cap on what any one project leader can request/spend.  My personal opinion
here is that this $2k cap should be treated as a guideline, not a rule.  It
is likely in place to prevent abuse by having a significant amount of money
from the pool go to any one individual.  But, that cap certainly should not
prevent the OWASP Foundation from investing in the projects, and people
behind the projects, to make them better.  The Board entrusts Paul, as
Executive Director, and the OWASP staff to handle the day-to-day operations
of the OWASP Foundation.  Part of their job is to review these types of
requests in order to determine whether they make sense and there are funds
available.  That said, if you get to a point where you feel that they are
being unreasonable, the Board can certainly step in and try to determine if
an exception should be made.  So, net-net, maybe that $2k cap is too low.
Should we raise it?  If so, what should it be?  What amount would be
reasonable for any one individual to consume from that shared pool of
funds?  Guidelines can be changed.  Guidelines can even be overruled for
the right reasons.  This is a relatively minor issue that it sounds like
should be re-evaluated given rising costs, bigger budget pools, unused
funds, etc.  Can you please come up with a reasonable proposal here and I
will take that to the Board for approval to change this guideline?

Should we scrap projects and focus to be a dedicated conference
> organisation?...thats what  I see is happening whether consciously or not.
>

Your perception is VERY far from the truth.  I've spent the past 8.5 years
working with the OWASP Austin chapter and I've seen it grow from literally
3 people in a monthly meeting to around 70.  You, yourself, even said that
OWASP is being referenced in major publications and our tools are being
used around the globe.  That said, keep in mind that the OWASP mission is
one of education, and conferences address that mission directly.  They are
also the main fundraiser that helps to make sure that our chapters and
projects have the money that they need in order to be successful.

Should we scrap conferences and focus to gather those funds to create a
> better platforms for projects and become the next Apache foundation?
>

Where do you think those funds would come from?  By far, the majority of
OWASP's annual revenue comes from AppSecUSA and AppSecEU.  To be frank,
OWASP would be VERY different if it weren't for our conferences.

Should we use crowdsource for gathering funds for projects through the
> OWASP foundation?
>

This is not a mutually exclusive solution.  Yes, absolutely, use
crowdfunding to gather funds for projects.  Please prove out this model of
bringing another revenue source to OWASP.  I would imagine that this is a
way that projects would be able to get funds that a chapter never could.

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.
>

OK, but every project summit that we have had thus far has cost OWASP
money, not made it.  Speaking as the former Co-Chair of LASCON and
AppSecUSA, I can tell you that these types of events are a lot of work and
that it is difficult to attract attendees.  Attendees actually barely end
up covering their own costs (food, schwag, etc).  Sponsors and trainings
are usually the ones who generate the profit for these events.  So, let's
say you do a project summit.  How would you intend to attract attendees who
are willing to pay for the content?  If not, how would you intend to
attract sponsors whose sole purpose in being there is to sell product to
the attendees?  Especially if you don't want sponsors with commercial
intentions.  You would be lucky if you get enough sponsors to cover costs.
Or, in the situation of every past project summit that we've had, the
Foundation ends up covering the difference.  I'm not saying that you
shouldn't try to prove out this model.  I'm saying that it hasn't been
proven to date.  Also, it's a bit naive to say that chapters leveraging
their members and holding a conference isn't "fair".  We should be
encouraging as many endeavors as we can at OWASP that spread our mission.
Even more so if they generate additional revenue because that helps to
further our mission even more after the conference is over.  Nothing is
stopping a project from having a conference.  This isn't a matter of "fair"
or "unfair".  It's a matter of a team of people putting in the effort and
making it happen.  Please don't trivialize those efforts.

Also more focus on crowdsourcing projects. If people finds it a great idea
> they will sponsor it.
>

As I said above, I think this is a great idea.  Let's do 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.


Ask the staff to create a survey?  Why not make the survey yourself?  What
exactly are we surveying and why?  The only thing that I think you've
identified as an actual issue preventing projects from operating
efficiently is a cap on the amount of funding availing.  That doesn't
require a survey to get changed, just a plan and an approval.  I can't
guarantee support or action as it depends on the varying opinions of 7
unique individuals, but the Board would certainly evaluate any proposal
that is put on the table.

~josh

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:31 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> 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>
> 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
>>
>>
>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Costa_Rica>
>> 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>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>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>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>
>>> 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>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
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing listOWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150818/bcb65c5b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Governance mailing list