[Owasp-board] [Committees-chairs] OWASP Speaker Selection Committee

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Aug 16 16:04:39 UTC 2012


Personally, I disagree on the + category for OWASP projects so I'm sure it
is that obvious.  I don't want to select a proven craptastic speaker on a
boring topic just because it has to do with OWASP.  Fortunately, the
majority of OWASP Projects aren't this way, but there are a few that could
be snoozers for conference attendees.  I think that you handle this as a
question of if there are enough OWASP-related submissions that are of
quality, then you do a dedicated OWASP track.  Otherwise, what you get is a
bunch of people submitting pure OWASP topics just to get selected.  I don't
know about you, but I don't want that for my conference.

What do you mean by "a + category for abstract for publication as it"?  I'm
not following you here.

~josh

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:

> That's a good criteria thanks Josh
>
> I would add a + category if it was actually a OWASP project (perhaps that
> is obvious) and also a + category for abstract for publication as it.
>
> Tom Brennan
> 973-202-0122
>
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> Robert Hansen and Jeremiah Grossman are both members of the BlackHat CFP
> team for several years now.  Mano Paul is also well respected in the
> security community and has contributed to the CISSP exam and testing
> materials among other things.  All three have experience speaking at
> conferences around the world.
>
> We gave the selection team the leeway to develop their own selection
> criteria.  Most of it was developed by Robert Hansen with LASCON last year,
> but it was approved by the others this year.  The criteria are rated as
> follows:
>
> *** OVERALL EVALUATION:
>
> ---  3 (strong accept)
> ---  2 (accept)
> ---  1 (weak accept)
> ---  0 (borderline paper)
> ---  -1 (weak reject)
> ---  -2 (reject)
> ---  -3 (strong reject)
>
> *** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:
>
> ---  4 (expert)
> ---  3 (high)
> ---  2 (medium)
> ---  1 (low)
> ---  0 (null)
>
> *** PRESENTATION: ATTACK OR DEFENSE?: from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest)
>
> ---  3 (Attack)
> ---  2 (Unknown or N/A)
> ---  1 (Defense)
>
> *** PRESENTATION: RELEVANCE TO INDUSTRY TRENDS: from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest)
>
> ---  3 (New Topic)
> ---  2 (Unknown or N/A)
> ---  1 (Old Topic)
>
> *** PRESENTATION: TOOL RELEASE?: from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest)
>
> ---  3 (Public Tool Release)
> ---  2 (Unknown or N/A)
> ---  1 (Theoretical Discussion)
>
> *** PRESENTATION: VENDOR NEUTRALITY: from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest)
>
> ---  3 (Vendor Neutral)
> ---  2 (Unknown or N/A)
> ---  1 (Not Vendor Neutral)
>
> *** SPEAKER: INDUSTRY RECOGNITION: from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest)
>
> ---  3 (Well Known or Recognized)
> ---  2 (Known or Recognized)
> ---  1 (Not Well Known or Recognized)
>
> *** SPEAKER: PRESENTATION SKILLS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
>
> ---  5 (Excellent)
> ---  4 (Good)
> ---  3 (Fair or Unknown)
> ---  2 (Poor)
> ---  1 (Very Poor)
>
> It's kinda funny because Robert then said that this was too complex and he simplified his selections to more of just a flat 1-5 rating scheme overall.  As long as the rest of the reviewers follow suit and base it on the criteria above, we see no issues with this approach.  In any case, we have veto power, and will make the actual track arrangements, but are otherwise relying on this team to make the right selections for the conference.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Who is on the OWASP Global AppSecUSA selection committee as an example -
>> can you help explain the process being used for future training/conference
>> events.
>>
>> Commuting best practice to the knowledge tree helps all events;
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/How_to_Host_a_Conference
>>
>> Tom Brennan
>> 973-202-0122
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> My $0.02....as a conference planner I like having the freedom to be able
>> to choose how our speakers are selected.  We've assembled 3 industry
>> recognized people who have spoken at conferences around the world.
>> Probably as good a committee if not better than anything this CFP Committee
>> could attract.  Two of the three, in fact, are on the BlackHat CFP
>> Committee.  This should be the conference planners option and not a
>> mandatory.  For some planners, though, it may be nice to have this in their
>> back pocket if they do not have the connections we had.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  +1
>>>
>>>  GCC,
>>>
>>> OWASP Foundation continues to grow and by doing so our conferences are both
>>> a revenue source, focused evangelism and out-reach in each region of the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> To keep the quality high and the focus on OWASP and its related projects, I
>>> wanted to propose a global speaker selection committee assembled and used
>>> for Global AppSec events.  This committee or task-force would be called on
>>> for each of the Global AppSec events in 2013 and promoted as an opportunity
>>> for industry volunteers to get involved at a global level very much like
>>> the global committees.  One perk would be free access to the conferences
>>> and exposure that John Doe CISO of ABC Bank/Insurance/Shipping Company
>>> etc..etc..  is on the selection committee etc..  We start with the
>>> corporate supporters ask them to get involved helping to steer the
>>> direction of OWASP Conference content as a value of corporate supporter.
>>>
>>> This style has worked well for UBM Media / BlackHathttp://www.blackhat.com/review-board.html wanted to socialize it for you
>>> next global conferences and committee chair meeting.
>>>
>>> A blind CFP point system is need similar to EZChair and there are several
>>> others worthy of looking at:
>>> http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/
>>> http://cmt.research.microsoft.com/cmt/
>>>
>>> In a simular thought process,  Kate has started to pull together training
>>> feedback forms from 2010 - current as a metric this quality metric will
>>> help us accelerate the selection of training firms too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Committees-chairs mailing listCommittees-chairs at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/committees-chairs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Committees-chairs mailing list
>>> Committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/committees-chairs
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20120816/f4841bce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list