[Owasp-board] Fwd: [Global_chapter_committee] ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes

Seba seba at owasp.org
Wed Mar 21 18:36:40 UTC 2012


I can't make the  AppSecDC board meeting face-to-face, but count on my
remote participation

--seba

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:

> Looking forward to the AppSecDC board meeting that will be face-to-face to
> work out these issues. Seba I hope you can adjust your plans to join us in
> person.
>
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > ~josh
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
> > fellow board members, committee chair leaders,
> >
> > open to discuss this per email or a dedicated conference call.
> >
> > My opinion on these core questions are:
> >
> > 1) The global AppSec conferences have been and should in the future be
> the funding resource for the foundation, I don't see chapter events playing
> a role in this
> >
> > 2) I am in favor of the federated model, where the "power" comes from
> the local chapters
> >
> > --seba
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
> > Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board]
> ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes
> > To: Seba <seba at owasp.org>
> > Cc: OWASP Chapters Committee <global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>,
> OWASP Foundation Board List <owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>, Mark Bristow <
> mark.bristow at owasp.org>
> >
> >
> > Seba,
> >
> > I agree 100%.  The Conferences Committee does not have the time, the
> energy, or the willpower to support events across the entire organization.
>  This is reflected in the plan where we requested a full headcount to
> conferences in order to take it on.  Additional headcount would probably be
> necessary as well for the Chapters Committee to support any sort of a
> budget process.  I believe that the GConfC should focus on making the
> Global AppSec events succesful both from a profit and educational
> perspective and on putting the infrastructure in place (RegOnline, OCMS,
> EasyChair, etc) to support the other conferences and events.  The notion
> that four AppSec events each year cannot support the Foundation is absurd.
>  I've looked at the numbers and AppSec USA alone could probably support the
> Foundation if we wanted it to.
> >
> > The Chapters should be free to innovate and create events for whatever
> purpose they desire as long as it supports OWASP's mission.  As a
> Foundation, we should be creating and supporting a set of guidelines such
> as brand usage, content selection, etc, but should not be looking for ways
> to limit a Chapter's growth potential.
> >
> > Seba hinted at it, but at the core of this debate is a decision on
> whether the Foundation wants to adhere to a strong centralized model or
> wants to be like a tree and provide a strong set of roots and support in
> order to allow the leaves and branches to flourish.  The majority of the
> plans which I laid out in my discussions with Mark were stricken down with
> the notion that the four AppSec Conferences cannot alone support what the
> Foundation wants to accomplish and the oganization relies on Chapter events
> to pick up the slack.  Instead of forcing this issue back down on the
> committees, I'd like to see the Board give clear guidance on this one
> crucial point that will provide direction for the entire organization for
> years to come.    I would like the Board to evaluate two questions:
> >
> > 1) Should the AppSec Conferences alone provide enough funding to support
> the Foundation or do we need to rely on profit from Chapter events to
> subsidize this gap?
> >
> > 2) Should the Foundation adhere to a strong centralized model of
> governance in order to control the Chapters, Projects, etc or does the
> Foundation desire a model providing high-level guidance, support, and
> encouragement without the need to get hands-on with everything?
> >
> > The sooner the Board can come up with an answer to these two questions,
> the sooner the Committees can come up with a set of policies that fits
> these desires.
> >
> > ~josh
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Here is my input:
> >
> > I see the conferences committe to support the global conferences: these
> are our flagships and generate the majority of the income for the central
> OWASP Foundation.
> > All events (including paying) that are organized by chapters are to be
> governed by the chapters committee
> > the goal of these events is chapter outreach & growth
> > All income generated by these chapter events should go back to the
> chapter (minus the costs incurred, e.g. regonline if that is used) and it
> is up to the local chapter board to use this for their own purpose or to
> "share back" towards other chapters, projects or the summit.
> > I am a firm believer of local growth and minimal interference from the
> OWASP Foundation: it scales much bigger and faster.
> > As chapter committee we should focus on (re)starting chapters and help
> them grow into big chapters with maximum impact in their region.
> > As chapter committee we should facilitate knowledge & best practice
>  transfer from succesfull chapters towards new or struggling chapters.
> >
> > I don't think we should impose a budget on chapters, although we can
> point this out as best practice
> > I don't think we can set one single "split", instead we should encourage
> and provide incentives to chapters to raise their own means and share with
> the rest of OWASP
> >
> > The impact on a global scale of 10s or even 100s of strong and "wealthy"
> chapters that are empowered in their own region is way bigger than having
> one "wealthy" central OWASP foundation and 100s of "poor" sattelites
> >
> > --seba
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Ivy <ivy at owasp.org.cn> wrote:
> > Thanks for Josh's document collection and sharing.
> >
> > here is to express my points:
> >
> > Annual Budget Process:
> >
> > Agreed most of items listed in "OWASP Event Policy" Document from Josh.
> But i don't agree with "  In the event that the chapter does not submit a
> budget for the remaining funds or if any unbudgeted funds remain after
> December 31, the chapter will be given one month to determine another OWASP
> Chapter, Committee, or Project to allocate the unused funds toward. "
> >
> >  i think we should give a chapter another one year to determine the
> remaining funds. Maybe we could not budget profit over 3-5 years, but 1-2
> years are acceptable.
> >
> > Conference and Profit sharing :
> > I agreed with Tin's idea and i suggest:
> >     1. Global AppSec Conferences : profit--100% to OWASP Foundation
> >     2. Self-supporting Events
> > --Profit --we may say 80% to local chapter and 20% to Foundation,
> administrative overhead or regonline registration can charge for another
> fee separately; If there is large amount of profit(we may set an amount or
> decide by the chapters next year's budget), the chapter can choose to share
> more percentage to Foundation or allocate part of funds to other
> chapters/commitees/projects, etc.
> > -- Loss--100% to local chapter
> >     3. Events that require Financial Investment by the Foundation
> > --profit/loss:  how to split can be negotiable.
> >     4.  Events that require Financial Support by the Foundation
> > --Normally, new chapters always need financial support from Foundation.
> >
> > ------------------
> > Ivy Zhang
> > ------------------ Original ------------------
> > From:  "Josh Sokol"<josh.sokol at owasp.org>;
> > Date:  Tue, Mar 20, 2012 09:25 PM
> > To:  "Matt Tesauro"<matt.tesauro at owasp.org>;
> > Cc:  "OWASP Foundation Board List"<owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>; "OWASP
> Chapters Committee"<global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>; "Mark
> Bristow"<mark.bristow at owasp.org>;
> > Subject:  Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Owasp-board]
> ProposedConferences/Chapters policy changes
> >
> > We have 1 vote "Yes", 3 votes "No", and one vote absent.  The motion to
> approve fails.
> >
> > Rather than ditch all of this hard work, I'd now like to put this back
> on the committee to come up with a plan that satisfies ALL of the Board's
> Guiding Objectives.  I have shared with you a Google Doc containing these
> or you may refer to them as they were sent by Kate in a previous message.
>  I have also shared a Google Doc containing the wording for the policy that
> you just voted on.  I realize that it's a short timeframe, but given the
> timeline that the Board set for this I'd like to have the Chapter
> Committee's ideal policy ready for a Committee vote no later than next
> Monday, March 26 .  Tin has already put forward something that makes a good
> base for this so I'd suggest working to improve upon this to make sure 1)
> This satisfies all of the Board's objectives and 2) Everyone approves of
> this general approach.
> >
> > ~josh
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Matt Tesauro <matt.tesauro at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> > > "single point of truth": why?
> >
> > I was one of the proponents of this guiding principal.  The idea was to
> have a method of knowing what events are going on for OWASP.
>  Fundamentally, and particularly for the full-time employees we have,
> knowing that we put on X local events in Y locations over the course of
> year helps form a clear picture of how active and vibrant our community is.
>  It also will allow us to focus energy on supporting events (be they
> conference or chapter ones) by providing us some numbers on how many occur
> and what they are like.  The current call for marketing & press information
> would be more helpful and focused if we had some easy to gather numbers at
> hand.
> >
> > This does not have to represent a significant burden to chapters - its
> simply the Foundation saying "Let us know what you're up to so we can help
> you and the community fulfill our mission"  It was not intended to be a
> "Get permission before you do something" principal.  I've seen the forms on
> OCMS and they're not large or painful.  At most 15 minutes to fill in a web
> form so that we can get better visibility on OWASP events overall was the
> intent.
> >
> > The one thing I was trying to avoid by the "single point of truth" was a
> list of events on the conference page (conferences) and a list of events on
> the chapters page (chapter events).  For those who are not inside the
> community, this makes no sense.  Having a "single point of truth" allows us
> to better list, organize (e.g. on the Wiki, geographically, etc), and
> promote OWASP's efforts to bring our message to broader groups.
> >
> > There will always be contention between centralized and de-centralized
> notions in OWASP.  As long as we stick to our core values (e.g. innovation)
> we can provide the best balance between laissez-faire and centralized
> command.  I see this as, like John Wilander recently pointed out, a "tax"
> on those parties wanting to put on OWASP events.  Its not much to pay and
> it helps drive and inform the overall community so it can iteratively get
> better over time.
> >
> > --
> > -- Matt Tesauro
> > OWASP Board Member
> > OWASP WTE Project Lead
> > http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Live_CD_Project
> > http://AppSecLive.org - Community and Download site
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > As chapters committee member, I am also voting No.
> > There are too many questions / remarks I have with the proposed policy:
> >
> > Training: not part of the question (leave it up to the education
> committee)
> > How many chapter have > € 5000 now? Aren't we trying to solve a
> challenge for the happy few with too many red tape for the upcoming
> chapters?
> > Why > 10k board approval required?
> > Handbook chapter 4 is guidance, not policy: if we want to make it
> mandatory we have to add it to the mandatory section
> >
> > Don't agree with "Have the responsibility and authority for supporting
> and managing all chapter meetings": Why?
> > "single point of truth": why?
> >
> > I don't agree that a chapter who charges a fee for an event = event
> defacto "managed by the conferences committee"
> > I don't agree with the "single point of truth" for the conference page
> > Why "Global Conferences Committee will take a more active, direct role
> in the planning the marquee foundation events" : the original issue at hand
> (lascon) was not about the global appsec events: why this direct role?
> > Why does the conferences committee set the branding rules for all the
> events?
> > What business & authority does the conference committee have with the
> chapter budgets?
> > I don't agree with " ■ It is the responsibility of the chapter to plan
> ahead appropriately to get this budget through the Global Chapters
> Committee approval process if they intend to use the event to generate
> chapter revenue" => that would mean each event that e.g. Generates extra
> chapter sponsoring requires the conferences approval: what are you trying
> to achieve here?
> > Chapter sponsorship should be explicitly out of this policy: only
> governed by the chapters committee
> > The split is not clear: 50/50 or policy per type of event (still to be
> decided?)
> >
> > I don't agree with the top-down management point of view in general: to
> be scalable our guidance/policies should encourage local responsability and
> empowerment.
> >
> > --seba
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Tin Zaw <tin.zaw at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Josh, Mark, and Sarah,
> >
> > Thank you for your hard work to come up with the draft.
> >
> > I intend to vote No on this as the new policies are not in agreement
> > with my philosophy of stronger chapters. In addition, they put much
> > more burden on the committee members (of both committees).
> >
> > I am for stronger, more independent chapters with the board and the
> > committees providing oversight, not routine management, to prevent bad
> > things from happening. The goal for the board and the committees
> > should not be to approve every decision by chapters.
> >
> > There are items in the proposal that I disagree more strongly with,
> > but at this point, I won't elaborate on it, because my intent on No
> > vote is based on philosophical standing.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> > > For single-chapter events there would be two "buckets" each with a
> target
> > > amount of the chapter budget.  For multi-chapter events we just add
> more
> > > buckets for the additional chapter budgets.  Once a chapter bucket is
> full,
> > > they stop earning money from the event and the remaining amount goes
> to the
> > > Foundation.  This ensures that the Foundation and the Chapter earn
> money
> > > from the event at an equal rate.  Your example of how the funds would
> get
> > > split is correct.
> > >
> > > Budgets are only necessary if a chapter wants to receive money from an
> event
> > > or if they have more than $5,000 in their bank account at the end of
> the
> > > year.  This was requested by the Board in the guiding objective which
> states
> > > "We would like some sort of annual review, requirements, or rules to
> address
> > > the issue of stale chapter funds in excessive amounts" as well as "We
> would
> > > like some periodic recap on funds spent by chapters to help ensure
> funds are
> > > appointed on items aligned with the OWASP Mission".  Yes, this does
> add some
> > > additional operational work for our committee.
> > >
> > > ~josh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Seba <seba at owasp.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> can you explain:
> > >> "Profit will be split 50/50 between the foundation and the chapter up
> > >> until the chapter has received an amount equal to the chapter annual
> budget
> > >> amount"
> > >> My understanding is:
> > >> if in belgium we have an annual budget of € 10000, and we organize an
> > >> event with income resulting in a e.g. € 25000 the split would be €
> 15000 to
> > >> the foundation and €10000 to the chapter?
> > >>
> > >> a general remark: it seems we are loading a lot of operational work
> on the
> > >> committee in reviewing local budgets?
> > >>
> > >> --seba
> > >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Please discuss.  We will be taking this to a committee vote for
> approval
> > >>> at the next Chapter Committee meeting next Monday, March 19th.
>  Please be
> > >>> sure to send me and Sarah your vote before that deadline if you will
> be
> > >>> unable to attend the meeting.  Thank you.
> > >>>
> > >>> ~josh
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Global Chapters Committee,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (Note: same email send to Conference Committee on separate thread)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In response to the guiding objectives by the board, the Conferences
> and
> > >>>> Chapter Committee Chairs have worked together to formulate some
> policy
> > >>>> changes that we believe will meet the direction of the board while
> allowing
> > >>>> chapters and the foundation to grow and innovate.  These points
> have been
> > >>>> discussed at length and now we wish to hear your input on the
> matter.  We
> > >>>> have agreed on the outlined plan below and as a result each of us
> will not
> > >>>> make comments here past clarifications to any questions any of you
> have to
> > >>>> the proposed policy.  We would like to cap the debate on this topic
> and take
> > >>>> the following to a committee vote on Monday, March 19th using a
> majority
> > >>>> approval rule for both committees in order to meet the board's 45
> day
> > >>>> deadline.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Global Chapters Committee shall:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Manage all chapter meetings or trainings that do not charge
> a fee
> > >>>> for admission.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Establish an annual budget process for all chapters
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      At the end of each calendar year, a chapter with more than
> $5,000
> > >>>> in it's bank account must submit a budget to be reviewed by the
> Global
> > >>>> Chapters Committee to justify the rollover of any funds beyond that
> amount.
> > >>>> In the event that the chapter does not submit a budget for the
> remaining
> > >>>> funds or if any unbudgeted funds remain after December 31, the
> chapter will
> > >>>> be given one month to determine another OWASP Chapter, Committee,
> or Project
> > >>>> to allocate the unused funds toward.  If no designations are made
> before
> > >>>> February 1, then all unused funds will be transferred to the OWASP
> > >>>> Foundation main account.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Any chapter with more than $10,000 must also obtain Board
> > >>>> approval for their annual budget.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee will maintain "official"
> budgets on
> > >>>> the wiki or via google docs where they are accessible to all OWASP
> > >>>> participants.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee will update Chapter 4 -
> Section 7
> > >>>> of the Chapter Handbook with the new budget policy.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Establish by June 1st chapter spending guidelines (These
> should
> > >>>> be under Chapter 4 - Section 7.1 of the Chapter Handbook)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Have the responsibility and authority for supporting and
> managing
> > >>>> all chapter meetings
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Chapter Handbook authored by the Global Chapters
> Committee
> > >>>> shall serve as the single point of truth for all chapter policies
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Chapters Committee shall set all chapter policies
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Global Conferences Committee shall:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Manage all events that charge a fee for admission (voluntary
> > >>>> donations exempted) and any free event determined by the organizer
> to be a
> > >>>> conference versus a chapter meeting
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Have the responsibility and authority for supporting and
> managing
> > >>>> all events
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee has the responsibility for
> > >>>> procuring and managing centralized assets such as, but not limited
> to
> > >>>> registration tools and financial management tools
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee policy page shall serve as
> the
> > >>>> single point of truth for all event policies
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee shall set all event policies
> > >>>> with the exception of the profit sharing policy which requires the
> > >>>> concurrence of the majority of the Global Chapters Committee to be
> modified.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The OWASP Event Management System (formerly OCMS) will serve
> as
> > >>>> the single point of truth for OWASP events, AND will provide
> functionality
> > >>>> to track chapter meetings in the next release
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will revisit current event
> > >>>> definitions and include clear, objective definitions of event types
> as well
> > >>>> as the anticipated support level from the foundation.  These must be
> > >>>> approved by June 1st.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will take a more active,
> direct
> > >>>> role in the planning the marquee foundation events (currently
> defined as
> > >>>> Global AppSec Events) including having a representative serve as
> Chair for
> > >>>> these events.  (For this, Global Conferences Committee will require
> a full
> > >>>> time support asset to handle the additional event coordination.
>  Without
> > >>>> these additional resources the conferences committee can not take
> on this
> > >>>> added responsibility and will maintain an advisory/oversight role)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      Any and all event policies in effect at the time of event
> > >>>> approval shall apply to the event without modification unless a
> specific
> > >>>> requirement to do so is set by the Board.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will implement a policy for
> > >>>> managing all event funds through the foundation
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The OWASP foundation will provide all "seed funds" needed for
> > >>>> events up to the approved event budget and beyond with Global
> Conferences
> > >>>> Committee approval
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee shall be responsible for the
> > >>>> review, approval and signature of all contracts related to events
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The Global Conferences Committee may provide an exception for
> > >>>> events with extraordinary circumstances
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Any event using the OWASP brand not using the Foundation to
> > >>>> process it's finances will be in violation of OWASP brand usage
> rules and
> > >>>> will be referred to the Board for action
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee will set the following
> branding
> > >>>> rules except where it is unreasonable to do so
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      All events must use "OWASP" in their title, such as "OWASP's
> > >>>> AppSec XYZ"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Events may use their own logos so long as they include the
> OWASP
> > >>>> wasp (The Global Conferences Committee will manage logo approvals),
> color
> > >>>> palate is optional
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      The OWASP logo must be present on all websites/materials,
> except
> > >>>> where it is unreasonable to do so
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      A link back to owasp.org must be present on all
> > >>>> websites/materials except where it is unreasonable to do so
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ●      The Global Conferences Committee sets the following event
> profit
> > >>>> sharing model for all events:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      At the time of approval, the Global Conferences Committee
> will
> > >>>> record the chapter's current annual budget expenditures (referred
> to as
> > >>>> chapter annual budget)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>                                           ■Chapters that do not have
> > >>>> approved budgets shall have the chapter annual budget value set to
> $0
> > >>>>
> > >>>>                                           ■It is the responsibility
> of
> > >>>> the chapter to plan ahead appropriately to get this budget through
> the
> > >>>> Global Chapters Committee approval process if they intend to use
> the event
> > >>>> to generate chapter revenue
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Profits are all monies collected for the event (regardless of
> > >>>> source) above the direct expenditures for the event
> > >>>>
> > >>>>                                           ■Any membership
> registrations
> > >>>> as result of an event will be handled per Global Membership
> Committee policy
> > >>>> and are not considered in this equation
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Profit will be split 50/50 between the foundation and the
> chapter
> > >>>> up until the chapter has received an amount equal to the chapter
> annual
> > >>>> budget amount
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      After the chapter has received an amount equal to the chapter
> > >>>> annual budget the Foundation shall receive 100% of the remaining
> profits.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ○      Any Event Losses shall be the responsibility of the
> Foundation
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sarah Baso on behalf of Mark Bristow and Josh Sokol
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> OWASP Operational Support:
> > >>>> Conference Logistics & Community Relations
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dir: 312-869-2779
> > >>>> skype: sarah.baso
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Global_chapter_committee mailing list
> > >>> Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
> > >>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Global_chapter_committee mailing list
> > > Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
> > > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
> > Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
> > Member, OWASP Global Chapter Committee
> > Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-board mailing list
> > Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Global_chapter_committee mailing list
> > Global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_chapter_committee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-board mailing list
> > Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-board mailing list
> > Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
> Tom Brennan
> International Board of Directors
> OWASP Foundation
> (t) 973-202-0122
> (e) tomb at owasp.org
> (w) http://www.owasp.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20120321/050f7a17/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list