[Governance] [Owasp-board] Bylaw Update Discussion - Board Member Confidence

Bil Corry bil.corry at owasp.org
Wed Aug 26 16:05:30 UTC 2015


Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing.  The irony is that they have the same attendance
requirement we have.  OWASP requires Board members to attend at least 9
meetings a year, otherwise there's a vote of confidence.  That organization
requires their board members to attend at least 9 meetings a year too,
otherwise the issue is brought up to the board.  The only difference is we
say attendance must be 75% of meetings, they say attendance can't reach 66%
(which means it must be at least 75% too).

Their system is very lax with regard to attendance violations.  I think for
OWASP, with a ready supply of board replacements, the vote of confidence
allows the Board to deal with an absent Board member quickly if there's a
problem.


- Bil



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:

> (2) cents and a simple guideline see
>
> http://www.instepp.org/images/board_meeting_attendance_policy.pdf
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Ahhh, so this is something personal against me because I won't agree that
>> it makes sense to lower the bar for attendance?  Let's call a spade a
>> spade, Fabio.
>>
>> These are two completely separate issues.  The Board attendance is one
>> that ensures that you are at the meetings and actively engaged in the
>> discussion and voting.  This is your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS A BOARD
>> MEMBER.  Meeting in-person has no effect on whether you are performing your
>> Board duties.  It's a nice thing.  And, engaging with the community has
>> NOTHING to do with attending a Board meeting in-person.  It has to do with
>> being present while other members of our community are present.  Our
>> community extends well beyond those present at AppSecUSA or AppSecEU.  That
>> is an EXTREMELY narrow-minded viewpoint.  In fact, I would go so far as to
>> argue that there are more members of our community that were at BlackHat
>> than at either AppSec conference.  Nothing against AppSec, it's a great
>> conference, I even ran one, but they're limited in appeal and in those who
>> attend.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> My take on the 75% percent is that in the same fashion that US Board
>>> members could attend meetings comfortably during the day it is unfair to
>>> request other non-US Board members to attend meetings in the middle of the
>>> night. And then ask for a vote of CONFIDENCE if you go below that bar.
>>> Josh, in the same fashion that you object cannot attend meetings in person
>>> due to family reasons I think is unfair for you to request other Board
>>> members to make family sacrifices or deprive them from sleep.
>>>
>>> Here is the 2015 schedule for past/upcoming Board meetings… almost all
>>> of them are early afternoon PST (Pacific time):
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings#tab=Agenda_for_2015_Meetings
>>>
>>> So my recommendation there is either to make the requirement more
>>> logical for everyone (attendance 50% or lower) or change the wording so the
>>> vote of CONFIDENCE is not mandatory.
>>>
>>> Regarding the attendance in person… my suggestion is to require OWASP
>>> Board members to attend in-person at least ONE meeting a year and engage
>>> with the Global OWASP community.
>>>
>>> I don’t believe there is a requirement in the Bylaws for OWASP Board
>>> members to attend BlackHat, BSides or other non-OWASP events.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Fabio Cerullo
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015 <https://2015.appsecusa.org> in San Francisco!
>>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 13:53, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> +1 on both accounts. I am personally very grateful for your many and
>>> regular contributions on the board, even when we disagree on occasion. I
>>> think you handle conflict extremely well and I appreciate your strong sense
>>> of ethics.
>>>
>>> Keep on rockin' in the free world.
>>>
>>> Aloha,
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On 8/26/15 7:13 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>
>>> Fabio,
>>>
>>> I did not express any concern about the 75% requirement.  I think it is
>>> a very reasonable expectation to have a Board member not miss more than 3
>>> meetings a year.  Even that number seems high to me.  I don't see any issue
>>> if Michael or Andrew were to trigger a vote of confidence if they were to
>>> miss another meeting.  In all likelihodd, if that were to happen, we would
>>> just handle it exactly as we handled your situation.  We recognize
>>> contributions outside of the meetings and move on.  That said, if a Board
>>> member got elected, and simply wasn't attending meetings, or wasn't putting
>>> in any effort, would you really want to wait longer than 3 months to have
>>> the OPTION to remove them?  This process is working exactly as it was
>>> designed to.  Why would we want to change it all of a sudden now that
>>> someone was falling below the bar?
>>>
>>> With respect to changing the in-person Board meeting requirements, I
>>> strongly object.  I was the one who petitioned the Board to have this
>>> requirement changed from MUST to SHOULD in the first place.  While my
>>> family and work obligations make travel quite difficult for me, I don't
>>> think it has sacrificed my participation in the Board at all.  And in terms
>>> of interaction with the community, I was out at both BSides Las Vegas and
>>> BlackHat where OWASP had a presence at both.  Were you?  I participate in
>>> the MONTHLY OWASP Austin chapter meetings, MONTHLY happy hours, and
>>> LASCON.  I attend many other local and regional security events such as
>>> BSides Austin and HouSecCon.  So, there are MANY other ways for a Board
>>> member to meet with the community, talk about their needs, and help them
>>> progress their projects without an in-person Board meeting.  With OWASP
>>> having a highly-distributed global Board, and in this age of technology,
>>> the idea that we all have to be in the same place to get something done is
>>> ludicrous.  Is it more ideal?  Absolutely.  Should it be a requirement?
>>> Absolutely not.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for updating the wording in the clause below. I have some
>>>> comments regarding the 75% attendance requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Besides Josh, several board members already expressed a concern about
>>>> this requirement and are willing to lower/eliminate it.
>>>>
>>>> Just to give you an example: Michael and Andrew will trigger a vote of
>>>> CONFIDENCE if they miss another meeting during the calendar year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wpaOCBP-qrnde0sLiglDMJOUCtse6oB-zf3ONCkWgZk/edit?pli=1#gid=6
>>>>
>>>> I think that is counterproductive and will send us in a spiral of votes
>>>> of CONFIDENCE at every Board meeting. I would suggest to lower that
>>>> requirement or NOT making the vote of CONFIDENCE a requirement for meetings
>>>> attendance. The vote of CONFIDENCE should be a mechanism to expel a Board
>>>> member if they don’t fulfil their duties, misbehave with other
>>>> members/staff of the community, or they significantly do not show up at the
>>>> Board meetings (e.g. attendance less than 50%).
>>>>
>>>> Also, I believe the requirement to meet in person is quite vague as per
>>>> current statement below. I attended all in person meetings at AppSec USA &
>>>> AppSec EU and think they are very valuable. You have a chance to meet with
>>>> the community, talk about their needs, help them progress their projects,
>>>> and meet face-to-face with your fellow Board members. So if we are going to
>>>> change the Bylaws, I think we need to put a requirement for Board members
>>>> to meet in person at least ONCE a year. I will appreciate your feedback and
>>>> from the rest of the Governance list regarding this matter.
>>>>
>>>> Attendance in person or virtually by board members is required at no
>>>> less than 75% of the total meetings each year and *shall be highly
>>>> encouraged to meet in person at least once annually* at a date to be
>>>> announced and agreed upon.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Fabio Cerullo
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015 <https://2015.appsecusa.org/> in
>>>> San Francisco!
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Aug 2015, at 10:22, Bil Corry < <bil.corry at owasp.org>
>>>> bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>
>>>> Tabulation is described as thus (emphasis is mine):
>>>>
>>>> "Attendance is tabulated after every scheduled meeting for the purpose
>>>> of determining if the 75% attendance requirement has been met, and the
>>>> tabulation is *based upon the entire calendar year.*"
>>>>
>>>> That means if there are 12 meetings during the year and you miss the
>>>> first meeting, your attendance is 11/12 or 92%.  No vote required.
>>>>
>>>> As far as your other concerns, I've updated the text below, hopefully
>>>> I've covered it all?  I pulled deadlines out of thin air, so feel free to
>>>> tweak the numbers and method of voting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *SECTION 3.03 Regular Meetings.* The Board of Directors shall have
>>>> regular meetings as needed.  A link to the board meeting agenda’s and the
>>>> historical minutes is here:
>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings.  Meetings shall
>>>> be at such dates, times, and places as the Board shall determine in
>>>> December of the preceding year and as amended by the Board. In no event
>>>> will there be less than one meeting per quarter.  These meetings will be
>>>> open to public attendance, however, certain portions of the meeting may be
>>>> closed to board members and their delegates when required for legal
>>>> reasons, or to shield liability, or to handle personnel issues, or
>>>> similar.  Attendance in person or virtually by board members is required at
>>>> no less than 75% of the total meetings each year and shall be highly
>>>> encouraged to meet in person at least once annually at a date to be
>>>> announced and agreed upon.  Attendance is tabulated by the Executive
>>>> Director or delegate within seven days after every scheduled meeting for
>>>> the purpose of determining if the 75% attendance requirement has been met,
>>>> and the tabulation is based upon the entire calendar year.  Cancelled
>>>> meetings are considered attended for the purposes of the tabulation.
>>>> Failure by a board member to meet the 75% attendance requirement after any
>>>> tabulation will cause a mandatory vote of confidence by the remaining
>>>> board members, whose votes will be publicly recorded.  The vote of
>>>> confidence is to take place within 21 days, but not sooner than 7 days, of
>>>> notification by the Executive Director or delegate that a board member has
>>>> not met the attendance threshold.  During the first seven days, the board
>>>> member in question will have an opportunity to make their case to their
>>>> fellow board members.  The vote of confidence will take place on the OWASP
>>>> Board of Directors email list, unless the Board votes to review the matter
>>>> at their next meeting, so long as the next meeting occurs within the 21-day
>>>> window.  An overall vote of "confidence" is record if half or more of the
>>>> board members vote for it and it will prevent further votes of confidence
>>>> for the remainder of the year so long as the board member in question does
>>>> not miss any further meetings.  An overall vote of "no confidence" is
>>>> recorded if more than half of the board members vote for it, which causes
>>>> the board member in question to be instantly removed from their seat on the
>>>> board.  Vacancies on the board are handled as per Section 3.10.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2 OWASP Board of Directors will hold quarterly board meetings lasting
>>>> 4­6 hours each. The schedule of meetings will be set by the board in
>>>> December before the year. It is likely the the board meetings will take
>>>> place on Saturdays or on a dedicated day before a large OWASP conference.
>>>> This change is a result of the success of the longer format board meeting
>>>> and also a result of the Executive Director role that has enabled full time
>>>> involvement and focus on OWASP operations. Board members must attend (in
>>>> person or virtually) 3 of the 4 meetings to fulfill the attendance
>>>> requirements. This will take effect in January, 2014. Changes passed August
>>>> 19, 2013.
>>>>
>>>> 3 “and shall be highly encouraged to meet in person at least once
>>>> annually at a date to be announced and agreed upon” amendment to document
>>>> passed June 10, 2013.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Bil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I initiated a Board vote on the new text that you had proposed back in
>>>>> April or May this year and the Board unanimously voted to approve.  Paul
>>>>> has been working to try to identify all of the changes that have been made
>>>>> (there's only been one or two this year) in order to get a new version of
>>>>> the Bylaws on the website.  Regardless, the one that is there is definitely
>>>>> out-of-date.
>>>>>
>>>>> With respect to your update, thank you, I was thinking something
>>>>> similar as well, but this doesn't address a few of my bullet points:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - The method of tabulation is unspecified.  If we are tabulating
>>>>>    sequentially, then we have a situation where if a Board member missed their
>>>>>    first meeting, a vote is required to be held for three tabulations (0%,
>>>>>    50%, and 66%) until they make it up over 75%.  I am guessing that the
>>>>>    intent is for this to be tabulated assuming attendance for all future
>>>>>    meetings and action would be taken if the person would be unable to
>>>>>    maintain 75% attendance, but if anyone disagrees and has a different
>>>>>    interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>>    - The timeframe for the vote is unspecified.  It just says that it
>>>>>    will cause a mandatory vote of confidence, but never says when that vote is
>>>>>    supposed to take place or who is supposed to initiate it.  Is it to be
>>>>>    handled immediately at the time of tabulation?  Is it handled offline over
>>>>>    e-mail as we recently did?  Is it handled at the next Board meeting?  Based
>>>>>    on the current verbiage, technically the Board could drag it's heels on it
>>>>>    indefinitely.  I would think that something reasonable would be having the
>>>>>    vote initiated by our Executive Director within two weeks of the tabulation
>>>>>    that found them to be not meeting their attendance requirements.  If there
>>>>>    is a Board meeting during that window, then it could be handled then, or
>>>>>    handled via the mailing list otherwise.  That provides time to handle the
>>>>>    situation and removes any Board member bias from the initiation of the vote.
>>>>>    - This does not offer the offender an opportunity to explain why
>>>>>    they failed to meet their attendance requirement.  I think that a
>>>>>    reasonable process would assume that there is a rational explanation for
>>>>>    why they did not attend.  Maybe it's because all of the meetings were being
>>>>>    held at 2 AM in their timezone.  Maybe it's because of a death in the
>>>>>    family.  I think this process should take the personal factor into
>>>>>    consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you care to take a stab at addressing these?  If not, I can
>>>>> certainly take a shot at it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Bil Corry < <bil.corry at owasp.org>
>>>>> bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current bylaw I see is from last year, which doesn't have the
>>>>>> text you quoted.  It's here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Foundation_ByLaws>
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Foundation_ByLaws
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know we discussed changing the bylaws, but I don't know what was
>>>>>> ultimately adopted.  FWIW, this is the wording from last proposed text,
>>>>>> which is very clear on how tabulation is calculated, although it doesn't
>>>>>> give strict time limes for tabulation and confidence voting.  The thought
>>>>>> was to allow the Board some flexibility in how they want to execute it.
>>>>>> But if you'd like it to be formally incorporated into the bylaws, then
>>>>>> please proposed some text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SECTION 3.03 Regular Meetings.* The Board of Directors shall have
>>>>>> regular meetings as needed.  A link to the board meeting agenda’s and the
>>>>>> historical minutes is here:
>>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings>
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings.  Meetings
>>>>>> shall be at such dates, times, and places as the Board shall determine in
>>>>>> December of the preceding year and as amended by the Board. In no event
>>>>>> will there be less than one meeting per quarter.  These meetings will be
>>>>>> open to public attendance, however, certain portions of the meeting may be
>>>>>> closed to board members  and their delegates when required for legal
>>>>>> reasons, or to shield liability, or to handle personnel issues, or
>>>>>> similar.  Attendance in person or virtually by board members is required at
>>>>>> no less than 75% of the total meetings each year and shall be highly
>>>>>> encouraged to meet in person at least once annually at a date to be
>>>>>> announced and agreed upon.  Attendance is tabulated after every scheduled
>>>>>> meeting for the purpose of determining if the 75% attendance requirement
>>>>>> has been met, and the tabulation is based upon the entire calendar year.
>>>>>> Cancelled meetings are considered attended for the purposes of the
>>>>>> tabulation.  Failure by a board member to meet the 75% attendance
>>>>>> requirement after any tabulation will cause a mandatory vote of
>>>>>> confidence by the remaining board members, whose votes will be
>>>>>> publicly recorded.  An overall vote of "no confidence" is recorded
>>>>>> if half or more of the board members vote for it, which causes the board
>>>>>> member in question to be instantly removed from their seat on the board.
>>>>>> Vacancies on the board are handled as per Section 3.10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 OWASP Board of Directors will hold quarterly board meetings lasting
>>>>>> 4­6 hours each. The schedule of meetings will be set by the board in
>>>>>> December before the year. It is likely the the board meetings will take
>>>>>> place on Saturdays or on a dedicated day before a large OWASP conference.
>>>>>> This change is a result of the success of the longer format board meeting
>>>>>> and also a result of the Executive Director role that has enabled full time
>>>>>> involvement and focus on OWASP operations. Board members must attend (in
>>>>>> person or virtually) 3 of the 4 meetings to fulfill the attendance
>>>>>> requirements. This will take effect in January, 2014. Changes passed August
>>>>>> 19, 2013.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 “and shall be highly encouraged to meet in person at least once
>>>>>> annually at a date to be announced and agreed upon” amendment to document
>>>>>> passed June 10, 2013.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Josh Sokol < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Board,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As recently discussed and voted on in a separate thread, our current
>>>>>>> Bylaws state as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Failure by a board member to meet the 75% attendance requirement
>>>>>>> after any tabulation will cause a mandatory vote of confidence by the
>>>>>>> remaining board members, whose votes will be publicly recorded.  An overall
>>>>>>> vote of "no confidence" is recorded if half or more of the board members
>>>>>>> vote for it, which causes the board member in question to be instantly
>>>>>>> removed from their seat on the board.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see a few issues with this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - The timeframe that this applies to is unspecified.  Is it per
>>>>>>>    quarter?  Per calendar year?  Over the two year duration of a Board member
>>>>>>>    term?  Over the cumulative time that a Board member is in office?  I'm
>>>>>>>    guessing that the intent is for this to be over the calendar year, but if
>>>>>>>    anyone disagrees and has a different interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>>>>    - The definition of "tabulation" is unspecified.  Who is doing
>>>>>>>    the tabulation?  Is there a certain time that this tabulation is
>>>>>>>    conducted?  I'm guessing that the intent is for this to be based on the
>>>>>>>    attendance role that is captured during the Board meeting, but if anyone
>>>>>>>    disagrees and has a different interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>>>>    - The method of tabulation is unspecified.  If we are tabulating
>>>>>>>    sequentially, then we have a situation where if a Board member missed their
>>>>>>>    first meeting, a vote is required to be held for three tabulations (0%,
>>>>>>>    50%, and 66%) until they make it up over 75%.  I am guessing that the
>>>>>>>    intent is for this to be tabulated assuming attendance for all future
>>>>>>>    meetings and action would be taken if the person would be unable to
>>>>>>>    maintain 75% attendance, but if anyone disagrees and has a different
>>>>>>>    interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>>>>    - The timeframe for the vote is unspecified.  It just says that
>>>>>>>    it will cause a mandatory vote of confidence, but never says when that vote
>>>>>>>    is supposed to take place or who is supposed to initiate it.  Is it to be
>>>>>>>    handled immediately at the time of tabulation?  Is it handled offline over
>>>>>>>    e-mail as we recently did?  Is it handled at the next Board meeting?  Based
>>>>>>>    on the current verbiage, technically the Board could drag it's heels on it
>>>>>>>    indefinitely.  I would think that something reasonable would be having the
>>>>>>>    vote initiated by our Executive Director within two weeks of the tabulation
>>>>>>>    that found them to be not meeting their attendance requirements.  If there
>>>>>>>    is a Board meeting during that window, then it could be handled then, or
>>>>>>>    handled via the mailing list otherwise.  That provides time to handle the
>>>>>>>    situation and removes any Board member bias from the initiation of the vote.
>>>>>>>    - This does not offer the offender an opportunity to explain why
>>>>>>>    they failed to meet their attendance requirement.  I think that a
>>>>>>>    reasonable process would assume that there is a rational explanation for
>>>>>>>    why they did not attend.  Maybe it's because all of the meetings were being
>>>>>>>    held at 2 AM in their timezone.  Maybe it's because of a death in the
>>>>>>>    family.  I think this process should take the personal factor into
>>>>>>>    consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the above in mind, I don't see a reason to lower the bar from
>>>>>>> 75%.  My thinking is that this is a reasonable expectation to have of a
>>>>>>> Board member with all things being equal.  It may not be the best measure
>>>>>>> of engagement, but it is still a responsibility that all Board members are
>>>>>>> aware of going into it, and I am not aware of it having been an issue in
>>>>>>> the past (until now), so I'm not sure why we would change it now that one
>>>>>>> Board member had a vote initiated for it.  I would propose that we update
>>>>>>> the language in order to better clarify my bullet points above, but leave
>>>>>>> the requirement itself in place.  Please provide your thoughts regarding
>>>>>>> each of these bullet points (or any other issues that you think need to be
>>>>>>> addressed here).  Once we have some level of agreement with these, I can
>>>>>>> take the action item of re-writing this section of the Bylaws in order to
>>>>>>> incorporate these changes.  Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>>> <Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board>
>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>> Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Governance mailing listGovernance at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundationhttps://www.owasp.org
>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>
> WARNING: E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. No employee or
> agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of
> ProactiveRISK with another party by email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150826/67872859/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Governance mailing list