[Owasp-board] (OWASP BOARD) comment on RFC: Two proposed next tweaks to the services registry

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Tue Jun 1 08:35:40 UTC 2010


I'm glad that Jeff confirms my worries about Mike and that he confirms (what
I was also under the impression) that neither him or Dave were working on
this issue with Mike (in fact the one that has been mainly 'working on this'
with Mike for the past weeks has been me).

We have two issues to handle here, and we have to thread them separately (or
we will be 'throwing the baby with the bath water')

*Issue 1: Mike* (and how to handle his latests moves and his current OWASP
leadership status)

*Issue 2: OWASP Commercial Services *(If you follow the email threads, I
think you will see that I (at least) have been involved in 'trying' to steer
the discussion to a place that makes sense to OWASP, and have in several
moments made clear that Mike's view is now ours. That said, I think we are
almost there, and if you look at the email I sent earlier yesterday with the
revised proposal for how it should work, you will see a working model that
can work organically)
Lets deal with them in turn and send a clear message to our community on
where we stand.

I'm around all day today, so ping me when you want to talk about this

Dinis Cruz

Blog: http://diniscruz.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DinisCruz
Web: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/O2


On 1 June 2010 04:57, Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Sorry guys – I was in the country out of cell range all weekend.
>
>
>
> First, I think this whole registry idea is dumb and a big waste of time.  I
> tried to kill it by opening it up to the board and leaders before it
> happened, and didn’t get much reaction.  Now we have to clean it up or kill
> it.  I’m sympathetic to Dinis’ point that the commercial companies are a
> part of the community.  But I’m frankly not sure we’ve got the ability to
> engage with them more deeply without confusing everyone. Right now our
> message is clear and attractive.  No commercial stuff at OWASP. Muddying
> that up is probably a mistake.
>
>
>
> Anyway, neither Dave or I have been working closely with Mike on this.
> When Mike bugs me enough, I do give him some advice. Here’s a recent
> message…
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> This is a hard message for me. I don't like to interfere in the normal
> operation of the community because generally these things are
> self-correcting.  But I consider you a friend and I need to let you know
> that some of your messages are not helping OWASP, your employer, or you.
>
>
>
> The people in the OWASP community are volunteers, generally very smart, and
> know a lot about application security. There's a reason why they're
> discussing this - it's important.  And as much as you might not like the
> idea, there's really not a big gulf between the OWASP T10, WASC, SANS T25,
> and ASVS.  The best thing possible for ASVS would be for it to be what you
> turn to when you're ready to actually meet the OWASP T10.
>
>
>
> If I were you, I'd send an apology for this message and encourage
> discussion of all aspects of ASVS, including how it relates to the other
> docs and standards in our field. You're not going to change the status quo
> by insulting smart volunteers that are the only prayer for ASVS getting
> mindshare.
>
>
>
> I also have to tell you that I find many of your posts on the OWASP list
> almost impossible to decipher. I've resisted giving you feedback because I
> don't want you to feel like I'm grading you - I'm not. I'm trying to help
> you be more effective in accomplishing the goals of your projects.  I
> encourage you to reread the messages before you send them to make sure that
> anyone reading them will be able to figure out what you're talking about.
>
>
>
> I hope you take this in the constructive manner intended. I absolutely
> appreciate all the effort you've put into OWASP over the past few years.  If
> you'd like further clarification or if there's anything I can do to help,
> please don't hesitate to let me know.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
>
> I think we do need to be careful about how we handle Mike.  We always say
> at OWASP if you don’t like something you can just do it yourself.  Well,
> here’s a good case when it didn’t work out.  If we’re going to operate that
> way, I think we have an obligation to get in front of things that are going
> the wrong direction and let the volunteers know that we’re not behind the
> project.  I think in this case we sent a muddy mixed message.
>
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
> owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom Brennan
> *Sent:* Monday, May 31, 2010 7:26 PM
> *To:* dinis cruz
> *Cc:* OWASP Foundation Board List
> *Subject:* Re: [Owasp-board] (OWASP BOARD) comment on RFC: Two proposed
> next tweaks to the services registry
>
>
>
> Mike made claim tonight when he called me that he has been working very
> very closely with Dave and Jeff on this project - so either a. that is
> false, b. this is true (hence my suggestion to call them)
>
>
>
> Personally as i expressed on the last board call OWASP Commercial Services
> should be OWASP Community Services if a registry/phone book was the goal and
> I liked
> http://www.securityscoreboard.com/reviews/tag/productsoffered/webapplicationsecurity;)
>
>
>
> Will try to skype you tomorrow wrapping up the holiday here in the USA
> then headed to OWASP Denver FROC so will talk wit hDavid Campbell and then
> to OWASP Mexico for chats with Juan so by the time we get to OWASP Sweden
> should have lots of points of view on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 31, 2010, at 7:13 PM, dinis cruz wrote:
>
>
>
>  Tom, *what we agreed was that we were going to try to figure out the
> model to get this done. *In following threads/developments it was (sort
> of) established that two Board members (me and Eoin) would be directly
> involved in this (since Jeff and Dave didn't had a lot of cycles to be
> involved).
>
>
>
> Since I did spoke with Mike before I sent you my last email with the
> proposed plan, the least he should have done is waited for the follow up
> conversation and not have sent that email to the leaders list.
>
>
>
> I know Mike is putting a lot of energy into OWASP, but he is also
> generating a LOT of negative energy with his actions, for example I had
> several KEY OWASP Leaders last week talking to me about Mike's behaviour and
> how worried they are about how things were being done. My view is that we
> need to calm him down, or remove him since his current attitude to OWASP is
> not healthy at all
>
>
>
> For example, part of the reason for the low voting is most likely directly
> related to how low 'street-cred' Mike has in OWASP (can you find one or more
> OWASP Leaders that can recommend him?). I will not comment (for now) on what
> is happening on the other projects that Mike is involved, but on this case
> (the OWASP Commercial Services) he is way out of line and needs to
> be controlled.
>
>
>
> Tom or Jeff, if Mike listen to you guys, you need to talk to him, since he
> is clearly too piss-off with me to realize that I am actually trying to help
> him (both personally and professionally)
>
>
>
> And btw, I did try to call Jeff and Tom but couldn't get through (I've
> already spoken to Eoin and Matt  last week and need to follow up on Seba &
> Dave).
>
>
>
> I'm happy to talk about this anytime so please either call me or let me
> know when it is a good time to talk.
>
>
>
> I will again ask that you read my email with the proposed model for the
> 'OWASP Commercial Services' and chip-in with you comments.
>
>
> Dinis Cruz
>
>
>
> On 31 May 2010 23:26, Tom Brennan - OWASP <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused. This was approved by the board and Jeff agreed to work
> with Mike on this effort.  Mike has been giving cycles to owasp working with
> both Dave and Jeff on this effort.
>
>
>
> The recent email vote was very poor 39 people vote - terrible.  We need to
> have a paid owasp member list and call that owasp-leaders (topic for another
> meeting) if we are going to use voting to override ethics and principals.
>
>
>
> Dinis, have you spoken to either Jeff/Dave on this topic on the phone for
> clarrification? This is not going to be cleared up during a 60 min board
> call so would be ideal if you could make that happen.
>
>
>
> I did get a call from Mike with a WTF - he is giving cycles but feels like
> he is being kicked in the balls by you.  We could put you and him at
> blackhat at a bar/gokart/ring and let you to work it out... However it
> appears that this is not a one-to-one issue.
>
>
>
>
> On May 31, 2010, at 4:14 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>  Nice, really nice :(
>
>
>
> Mike is really starting to be a problem guys, I'm sorry to say but this
> last one (see email below) is very below the belt.
>
>
>
> I'm trying hard to be fair with this guy, but am really losing my patience
> here.
>
>
>
> Please take into account that I DID call him up today, explained him my
> 'updated' model and mentioned that was going to present the model to the
> OWASP board.
>
>
> Dinis Cruz
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Mike Boberski* <mike.boberski at gmail.com>
> Date: 31 May 2010 21:02
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] RFC: Two proposed next tweaks to the services
> registry
> To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> The results of the survey are in! Thank you for taking the time.
>
>
>
> It was a toss-up on the question of whether to include descriptions of
> approaches to performing a given service. So, the requirement has been
> removed for now, we can always revisit this and other items later on.
>
>
>
> It was not a toss-up on the name change, there was an overwhelming response
> to leave it named "commercial services". So, the name stays for now, we can
> always revisit this and other items later on.
>
>
>
> Please do forward any additional suggestions for improvement. I think this
> approach worked well, batching them up and creating a survey, to gather
> community inputs.
>
>
>
> To be listed in the OWASP Commercial Services Registry, contact Kate
> Hartmann <http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Contact>.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Mike
>
>   On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Boberski, Michael [USA] <
> boberski_michael at bah.com> wrote:
>
>   Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> As you know, I have been working on the OWASP commercial services
> registry/commercial services board.
>
>
>
> We’re basically shooting for a phone book that’s sorted according to some
> OWASP artifacts as they are currently categorized, to try to nudge the
> planet along in adoption of them, to get consumers of services of those
> types to ask for them, by making it easy to find such service providers.
>
>
>
> Towards the end of continuing its development, there are a next set of
> proposed updates that we would like your opinion on. A survey has been setup
> here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9JDN98P  If you can spare a few
> minutes to provide your input, it would be appreciated. The cutoff date is
> the end of the week.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mike B.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/owasp-board/attachments/20100601/07b7d176/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list