[Owasp-board] Barter-In-Trade / Wiki Changes
dave.wichers at owasp.org
Wed Nov 23 20:00:05 UTC 2011
If we want full transparency/disclosure, which I think is good, I think we
should document all that somewhere else on the wiki.
We can then decide separately how to list the logos. I suggest keeping them
all together, or listing the barter and trade orgs first, in order to
promote/encourage/highlight their contributions to OWASP.
From: Tom Brennan [mailto:tomb at owasp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:55 PM
To: Dave Wichers
Cc: OWASP Foundation Board List; Kelly Santalucia
Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Barter-In-Trade / Wiki Changes
I like that -- we should also list what the barter in trade is. The other
ones we know are 5k as well as other intangibles as well. Topic for next
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org>
> 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.
> 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.
> ---------- 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>
>> I totally agree with transparency but not with separation on the
> page. Do you feel that BIT members are less important to OWASP? I
> think they are more important and we should encourage this.
> 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.
> 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
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
More information about the Owasp-board