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

Tom Brennan tomb at owasp.org
Wed Nov 23 20:14:42 UTC 2011

Kelly can you make sure this is a topic on the Membership radar for
the next meeting meeting too.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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.
> -Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> meeting.
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>> 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_Horizonta
>> l&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