[Owasp-board] Barter-In-Trade / Wiki Changes

Dave Wichers dave.wichers at owasp.org
Wed Nov 23 17:03:14 UTC 2011


Tom,

I think the actual original separation was not discussed with the board
either. There was just a little bit of chatter on the leaders list.

The way it separated things out it actually, in my opinion, made the barter
in trade members of OWASP look like 2nd class citizens when in fact, we
should be encouraging that probably even more than simply asking for
organizations to become paid members. Many of the barter in trade agreements
are far more valuable to OWASP than a simple $5K contribution. I would
rather have companies contributing lots of their employees time to OWASP
projects than get $5K from them. That's far more valuable and something we
should strongly encourage, not discourage.

If you insist on keeping them separate I think we should instead list them
first in the list, rather than after the paid members to recognize them for
their frequently more valuable contribution that simply paying an annual
membership fee.

-Dave

p.s. Here is some previous discussion on this point from Jeff, Jim, Tom:

-----

I think the point is that we DO want total transparency, AND we should not
separate BIT membership or make it appear less valuable to OWASP.

--Jeff
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
Date: Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Subject: What did you do today?
To: Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org>
Cc: "owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org" <owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>


I've been one of the folks screaming for financial transparency and
accountability. In this case I think that Jeff is "right on". If the
board or whatever appropriate body makes the call to support a trade,
then that assistance is just as valuable as cash and that support
deserves equal standing in OWASP.

...

With Respect,
- Jim Manico

On Jul 30, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Jeff Williams <jeff.williams at owasp.org> wrote:

> I totally agree with transparency but not with separation on the front
page.  Do you feel that BIT members are less important to OWASP?  I think
they are more important and we should encourage this.
>
> --Jeff

Tom even indicates:

>>> Salesforce there was a $15k annual contract negotiated and Rackspace and
>>> Akamai are in progress and will be posted shortly.

Do you think that this barter in trade agreements are LESS valuable than
corporate membership? I don't this so. (Dave)

-----Original Message-----
From: owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org
[mailto:owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Brennan
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:29 AM
To: OWASP Foundation Board List
Cc: Kelly Santalucia
Subject: [Owasp-board] Barter-In-Trade / Wiki Changes

Working on another promotional agreement for the good of OWASP with
http://pentestmag.com/brand-new-web-app-pentesting/  to provide full page
OWASP Foundation ad's for 2012.  This will be a Barter In Trade arrangement
like we did with CMP Media/Blackhat and have listed with others (Rackspace,
Akamai etc..)

I am concerned however that changes to the membership page were made by Dave
Revision as of 13:07, November 8, 2011 by Wichers to eliminate the
designation of Barter in Trade Memberships vs. Paid Memberships as they are
very different things and infact provide a transparent and basic way of
identification of the supporters involvement.

https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Template:OWASP_Members_Horizontal&oldi
d=119908

These changes were not discussed with the board or membership committee -
they should be rolled back.

Lets add this as a discussion topic for Mondays' next working board meeting
and all organizations that we have a barter in trade agreement with should
have a invoice/agreement to back them up.  It is also a tax requirement
(http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html)

-Tom
_______________________________________________
Owasp-board mailing list
Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board




More information about the Owasp-board mailing list