[Owasp-board] conference responsibilites

Seba seba at owasp.org
Fri May 20 12:53:23 UTC 2011


Kate,

I fully support your proposed scenario.
Thank you for your constructive suggestion!

I would also like to underline that the conferences committee has done a
tremendous job, and I am convinced they will continue doing so.

regards

--Seba

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org>wrote:

>  Mark, Tin, and Board,
>
>
>
> Before I send this note out to the committee lists or the leader’s list or
> any other list I want to send it to you in hopes that you will take this on
> and support it.
>
>
>
> I have been trying to read all of the communication about the profit
> sharing split and the role of the GCC and on and on and on.  This debate is
> frustrating and is not beneficial.  The truth is, it is actually harmful,
> going against our mission and purpose.  Factions are forming, and a solution
> needs to be agreed upon.
>
>
>
> So, at the Board meeting, I will be presenting the following possible
> scenario:  The GCC maintain supervision and the financial policies apply to
> the 7 major AppSec events (Asia, North America, South America, Europe,
> Oceania, and the other two location (potentially AppSec DC – as suggested by
> John Wilander, and another large conference that meets the standards of an
> AppSec).  The other, smaller events like LASCON, FRoC, BeNeLux would become
> the responsibility of the Chapter Committee.
>
>
>
> This is the rationale for this suggestion…
>
>
>
> 1.  Mad Props to Mark and the Conferences committee for setting up a flow
> through to capture and manage events.  The OCMS is awesome!  Way better than
> getting random emails about events or finding out about them after they’ve
> happened…
>
> 2.  Most of the requirements (policies) apply to all events (speaker
> agreement, budget planning tool, insurance, financial liability) but some do
> not (profit sharing split)
>
> 3.  Global AppSec Events continue to be the Flagship events of the
> foundation and a primary source of revenue and, as such, require tighter
> supervision and relationship with the Foundation
>
> 4.  99.9% of Local/Regional events are intended to be just that…local and
> or regional events.  Their primary purpose is outreach and as such, drive
> our mission.
>
> 5.  The revenue from the local events is generally minimal at best and
> really stay in the locale that they came from
>
>
>
> So, I will be proposing this delegation of duties.  I understand that there
> are many challenges that the chapter committee will face, but since their
> focus is really supporting our outreach, it is a natural fit.  Since Sarah
> and I both have a foot in both the Conferences committee as well as the
> Chapter Committee, I think that between the two of us we can liaise any
> issues that arise.  A transition plan is necessary, but knowing the members
> of the chapter committee as well as the members of the Conference committee,
> I really believe this is the solution we need to adopt today to end this
> fracturing debate.
>
>
>
> Thoughts and comments are welcome.  I will be posting this to the community
> – outlining a plan – early next week to allow enough time for comments
> before the June 6th board meeting vote on the proposal.
>
>
>
> Kate Hartmann
>
> Operations Director
>
> 301-275-9403
>
> www.owasp.org
>
> Skype:  Kate.hartmann1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110520/29b4da16/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list