[Owasp-board] Fwd: [Global_conference_committee] Amendments to the recently approved GCC Governance Document (was: vote thread)

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Sat Dec 18 18:35:06 UTC 2010


FYI

Dinis Cruz

Begin forwarded message:

*From:* John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org>
*Date:* 18 December 2010 18:29:35 GMT
*To:* dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>
*Cc:* Lucas Ferreira <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org>,
global_conference_committee <global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
*Subject:* *Re: [Global_conference_committee] Amendments to the recently
approved GCC Governance Document (was: vote thread)*

I don't think secret votes are the prime thing. The ability to bring up
sensitive questions to discussion is.

Example: I've been concerned about the GCC's decision to let _current_
regional AppSecs keep their AppSec names whereas new regional OWASP
conferences cannot use the protected AppSec label. This is a clear conflict
of interest for Mark since he really wants to keep his AppSec DC brand
(understandable) but might stir up arguments in the community down the road.

I would like to discuss such questions free from conflicts of interest to be
able to do my best for OWASP. Then my vote, should there be one, can and
should be open and on the record.

Regards, John


Skickat från min iPhone

18 dec 2010 kl. 19:14 skrev dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>:

Can you think of the scenarious where you would need a 'secret vote'?


Dinis Cruz


On 18 Dec 2010, at 16:16, Lucas Ferreira <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>

wrote:


Regarding the need to step aside during calls, maybe secret votes

could be a solution. In the case more than one committee member

requires, we should implement secret votes. Some may argue that this

goes against the required openess, but I secret votes may be important

in some accasions.


Regards,


Lucas


On Friday, December 17, 2010, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>

wrote:

John,

Inline comments below.

FYI All, Looped in the GCC list.



On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org

wrote:


2010/12/17 Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>





So john, some inline comments to your comments below.

Also, do you approve the doc as is and want to put up separate

changes, or is this a reject?  If so, we'll re-open for discussion.





I approve as long as we can discuss and get changes in there

eventually.

Doing it now,  Looped in the main GCC list.












I like Mark but I still think we should have a max on how many

years (in a row) you can be chair. My suggestion is three years.







Fine by me.  If I got elected for 2011, would make it my last year.

To be clear – I think you're doing a great job and I'm not challen

ging you. But I think it's healthy to have a max. Would be good fo

r the OWASP Board too. People tend to deliver their best if they k

now the timeframe for their engagement and there's a natural succe

ssion when people know there has to be a new leader/chair chosen.

Look at American presidents vs Swedish ever-prime ministers. I muc

h prefer the American "you get two terms max".



A) feel free to challenge meB) I agree, some term limits are

healthy to keep things fresh.  I agree on the board comment but

that's for the new Governance working session that I just found out

I'm in......


C) I don't think that Lifetime MAXes are necessary, but i"m good

with only 3 consecutive years.










We need to comment that scheduling of the meetings have to take

into consideration the different time zones we're in. I constantly

have trouble attending OWASP phone calls because they're in odd

time of the day or night. If I have a Skype meeting until 1 am I

will not do a good job the day after. Mark has been good in

scheduling so far but we should have a sentence about not only

fitting for instance US time zones. I suspect any Asian GCC members

will have a lot to say about this.








Since a GCC member can be kicked out if not attending enough

meetings the scheduling is important.

I think that "Meetings will be scheduled based on the availability

of the majority of the members" settles this somewhat.  This forces

some type of "polling" in order to set the meeting date time.  Much

like I use Doodle now for scheduling.





Yeah. As long as we don't end up in the GCC always having a

majority of people in certain time zones so the majority of members

constantly prefer that time zone.



This is an entirely separate problem.  I'd love to have more people

from europe, asia and south america on the committee but

unfortunately we haven't had many takers to date.  I think that we

as a committee should not accept additional members from the US

unless one resigns.















Add a sentence about the GCC member(s) with conflicting interests

to temporarily leave the meeting during discussion. This is

important if we want to have an open and effective committee. For

instance – if AppSec in Stockholm would have produced a loss and t

he GCC wanted to discuss this you would have asked me questions fi

rst and then discussed privately for 10 minutes without me hearing.







Recusal is not a bad idea, however since our meetings are open to

anyone to join it would be odd for the GCC member to have to leave

when anyone in OWASP is welcome to stay.





I wouldn't mind. As a formal member I understand that people will

need to discuss freely for the committee to reach the right decision.



I just feel this is counter to "openness".  It's a tough call,

because if I wasn't a GCC member, and I knew the GCC was taking

something up important to me, I'd be on the call anyway to argue my

case if needed.  However I find that I'm better with mental

compartmentalization than most.






I don't it'll be a problem but gas prices vary a lot around the

globe. For instance gas is USD 7 per gallon in Sweden. So we might

want to say something about adjusting for local gas prices.







Do you have an internationally recognized index we can throw in here?

:D. No, but just a note on proving by receipt what your fuel costs

were per km/mile would be fine. Then we can default to the amount

you have there.



Well, on tho the 2011 plan vote so we can ask the board for funds

for this to matter ;)





 /John

--

John Wilander, https://twitter.com/johnwilander

Chapter co-leader OWASP Sweden, http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com

<http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com>Co-organizer Global Summit,
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011

<http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2011>Conf Comm,
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee







--

Mark Bristow

(703) 596-5175

mark.bristow at owasp.org


OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF

OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu

AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org





--

Mark Bristow

(703) 596-5175

mark.bristow at owasp.org


OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF

OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu

AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org




--

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.

_______________________________________________

Global_conference_committee mailing list

Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org

https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee

_______________________________________________

Global_conference_committee mailing list

Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org

https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20101218/566dadce/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list