[Owasp-board] [Owasp-Summit-2011] Mapping the next batch of Summit Attendees

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Mon Dec 13 10:23:51 UTC 2010


Jason I agree with your mappings and I think we are ready to open up the
discussion to a wider audience

I will now connect this thinking with the 'points' discussion that is
happening at the Membership Committee and lets see if over the next couple
days we can get an agreement on what type of 'points categories' we should
have and what should be their relative weight

Once that is done, we can open it up to the owasp-leaders list and
crowd-source the accuracy of the mappings (i.e. our leaders are the best
ones to confirm their own ratings and the projects/chapters/conferences they
are involved in)

Dinis Cruz


On 13 December 2010 06:20, Jason Li <jason.li at owasp.org> wrote:

> Given that we have a limited budget for the Summit, I think having a model
> is the right idea in order to objectively evaluate who should be sponsored
> to the Summit.
>
> I think the point values probably could use some adjustment (e.g. I think
> there's a difference between an Active Chapter leader and someone who just
> attends a conference).
>
> Here's my suggestion:
>
>    - Major Active Project Leader 5 points
>    - AppSec organizer in 2009/2010 5 points
>    - Special Invitation 4 points
>    - Key Industry player 4 points
>    - Active Chapter leaders 3 points
>    - New Committee Member 3 points
>    - New  Project Leader 3 points
>    - Recommit Committee member 2 points
>    - Past OWASP leaders 2 points
>    - Responded by 30th  2 points
>    - Participated at AppSec 1 point
>
> Rationale:
> - Committee Members: New committee members are demonstrating energy and
> initiative. Recommitted members are members who for one reason or another
> became inactive but have recommitted themselves to their committee. While
> it's great that they have recommitted, I think we should give a slight
> priority to new committee members over members who have already had an
> opportunity to serve but failed to deliver. In essence, Recommitted
> Committee members are akin to "historic" leaders
> - Projects: New projects leaders are like new committee in that we want to
> encourage the energy and initiative. Existing project leaders of active
> projects are extremely important to the OWASP ecosystem so they should be
> prioritized.
>
> Just my humble opinion.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:21 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Summit team (& Board)
>>
>> Following the conversations we had last week, here is a proposed model for
>> how to identify the receipients of the current 50k,  and the other Summit
>> participants that also need funding.
>>
>> Please note that this is just a first pass at figuring out this model, and
>> we really need to have this completed (and in format that makes sense)
>> before we open up the discussion to the rest of the OWASP Leaders (and
>> crowd-source this effort to them)
>>
>> Please take a close look at the tables in: *
>> https://spreadsheets.google.com/a/owasp.org/ccc?key=0Amvv_7Gz8Z7TdGNEb0RRUUdfX0tMQ1EwTjY1MzNMWmc&hl=en
>> *
>>
>> Hopefully it will make very clear why this is a complex issue and one that
>> we need to tackle with sensitivity
>>
>> I used Jason's spreadsheet to map the Global Committee members and made a
>> number of changes to it :)
>>
>> First please take a look at the *Global Committee Members *spreadsheet
>>
>> This contains the lastest information received from the Committees. The
>> logic that we are using on this table is:
>>
>>    -
>>    - A = Active Committee Members -> to be sponsored on the 1st round
>>    (the 50k we already have)
>>    - N = New Committee Members -> to be given 2 points in the 2nd Batch
>>    of Sponsorships
>>    - R = Reconfirmed Committee Members -> to be given 1 points in the 2nd
>>    Batch of Sponsorships
>>
>> As you will see on the next spreadsheet, the N and R ones will have to
>> compete with the list that we are creating with the Chapter Leaders, Project
>> Leaders, Conference Organizers, historic OWASPers and key industry players
>> that can make it to the Summit (the logic to give 2 points to the new
>> Committee members is that we should give then the benefit of the doubt and
>> the fact that they are currently full of energy).
>>
>> Remember that we will not be able to please everybody here since there are
>> always gaps between people's perceived contribution/value and what they
>> actually really did.
>>
>> The next Spreadsheet to look at is the *2nd Batch - Sponsorships*
>> *
>> *
>> This table contains a consolidation of everybody we are currently aware
>> that could go to the Summit and could deserve funding (it basically has all
>> Ns and Rs (New and Reconfirmed) from the previous table and the people from
>> this table (that is not already covered by the 50k):  *
>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011_Attendee*
>> *
>> *
>> I took a first stab at creating a criteria for how to create the list of
>> 'who gets sponsored first' (and for how much).
>>
>> Here is the list that me and Sarah came up with in the first session spent
>> around that table (which ultimately is defining what 'creates values' at
>> OWASP and how much weight does it have):
>>
>>    - Recommit Committee member 1 point
>>    - New Committee Member 2 points
>>    - Active Project Leader (New Project) 1 point OWASP Project created in
>>    the last 6 months
>>    - Active Project Leader (Major project) 2 point OWASP Project that has
>>    more than 6 month and has at least a Alpha release
>>    - Responded by 30th 2 point Can follow directions
>>    - Participated at AppSec 1 point
>>    - AppSec organizer in 2009/2010 2 points It takes a lot of work to
>>    organizing an OWASP AppSec
>>    - Active Chapter leaders 1 points Chapter had at least 3 meetings in
>>    last 6 months
>>    - Key Industry player 2 point
>>    - OWASP Historic leaders 2 point
>>    - Special Invitation 4 points Individual who is critical for a
>>    particular Working session (and would bring more attendees)
>>
>> Note that we are already at a 100K in 'sponsorship needed' value, I will
>> predict that the total amount of money needed will be about 150k (although
>> not all in that list will need the full 2000 USD, we should expect that
>> number of people to grow significantly).
>>
>> The discusion about how to raise this 100k to 150k is a special
>> discussion, so please use this thread to talk about the selection criteria
>> and how to create the list of 'Who gets sponsored first'
>>
>> Dinis Cruz
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-summit-2011 mailing list
>> Owasp-summit-2011 at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-summit-2011
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20101213/dbff4d83/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list