[Owasp-board] conference responsibilites

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Fri May 20 13:01:26 UTC 2011


My main issue with this is that the Conferences Committee has the experience
and knowledge regarding larger events i.e. conferences and the chapters
committee does not have this focus. Perhaps an attendance delimiter is
appropriate, say if OWASP is hosting the event and it's over say 100
attendees it is more conference, and would benefit from knowledge and
guidance of the conferences committee who has the experience with larger

Additionally, one of the conferences committee's major goals (and a primary
reason for OCMS's existence) is to conflicting scheduling of events.  Larger
events, including those with a regional draw need to be carefully managed as
we are currently experiencing attendee, speaker, and sponsor fatigue with
our schedule that's mostly in the second half of the year.  Local events IMO
are more for GConfC awareness and tracking of the "official" event schedule,
they rarely cost much (although almost all request some sort of
funding/schwag and foundation support) and I can't think of a single local
event that's turned a profit (many don't' charge a fee).  Frankly I'm quite
willing to let these small events be managed by chapters so long as we still
get awareness of them.  I also feel that, short of us having a "marketing'
arm, promotional and partner events should also be managed by the
Conferences Committee.

So my counterporposal would be that any event larger than 100 expected
attendees (Things that are clearly chapter meeting, such as NY chapter
meetings excluded) would be under the Conferences Banner.  Under 100
attendees are classified as local events, managed by the Chapters Committee
and put into OCMS for GCC awareness when working the larger schedule items.

Additionally, I don't really think this debate has much to do with who is
managing or has oversight of the events.  I think that the question is more
fundamental.  the question I see forming from the debate is "Who should
oversee and direct OWASP's activities?  The OWASP Foundation or OWASP
Chapters."  John Wilander from the Conferneces Committee put it well, I
think we're having a "Big-Government/Small Government" debate which is much
more significant to the direction of OWASP as a whole than a single policy
on profit sharing, and is a question better left to the Board than any
single committee.


On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:39 AM, 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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20110520/f256d029/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list