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

Matt Tesauro matt.tesauro at owasp.org
Thu Mar 22 13:20:14 UTC 2012


FYI: I have been following this thread but fat fingers, a new small phone
and travel to SnowFROC have kept me from replying at length.  I will put in
my 2 cents as soon as I am able.

-- Matt's phone
On Mar 22, 2012 12:06 AM, "Michael Coates" <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:

> Josh,
>
> Thanks for raising the two additional questions that require
> clarification.  We will provide that information.
>
> The overall issue regarding the structure of OWASP will also be clarified.
>  As members of the board we've been elected by this organization to make
> the tough decisions that are necessary to advance our mission and our
> organization.  Discussions such as these are examples of those tough
> decisions, lots of different paths forward with many people strongly
> supporting different views.  Everyone has the best interest of OWASP in
> mind, but we can't go every direction at once.
>
> So, rest assured, the board will tackle this item and provide greater
> clarity.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your continued hard work and volunteered time and efforts to
> OWASP.  We'll get back to you with more data shortly.
>
>
>
> -------
> Michael Coates | OWASP
> michael.coates at owasp.org | @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>
> I'm confused.  So many unknowns are what we run the Foundation on today.
> Apparently we're relying on non-Foundational fundraising (events run by
> chapter volunteers) to subsidize the gaps between Foundational fundraising
> (AppSec, membership, sponsors) and our Foundational expenses.  The very
> fact that the DC team, as an example, could decide tomorrow to just stop
> holding their event and leave the Foundation short on cash tells me that
> there is a very serious problem here whether you're willing to admit it or
> not.  All committee debates and profit sharing policies aside, these are
> not Foundation events and should never be counted in our budgets until the
> revenue has actually been realized.  The only thing that the Foundation can
> actually count on to raise money are the four AppSec events, membership,
> and sponsorship.  Even those are subject to the whims of our supporters.  I
> guess what I'm saying is that relying on money from anything other than
> those things which the Foundation has direct control over is a recipe for
> disaster.  Because of this, our efforts should be focusing on ways to
> realize more revenue from the fundraising efforts we do have direct control
> over and reduce expenses for the organization.
>
> No, I don't think that if a chapter event suffers a loss the chapter
> leaders should be liable.  It's not like they're padding their pockets with
> the profits.  They are going to support the OWASP mission in one way,
> shape, or form.  I also think that events can and should be run in such a
> way as to minimize the risk of a loss.  Beyond an initial venue deposit
> there are very few reasons why an event should be spending money before
> revenue has been realized to cover the expenses.  Using LASCON as an
> example, every dollar we spend is backed by a dollar we've already raised
> via sponsorships and registrations.  Under this model the risk is greatly
> minimized and the potential rewards are huge.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Respect your opinion thanks.
>> I don't think we can run the foundation on so many unknowns. We have
>> duties to our employees and our members.
>> For the record I would not be in favour of simply relying on 4 events
>> profit to run the foundation coupled with membership etc. I think it would
>> stifle some global initiatives which go beyond the reach of any individual
>> chapter.
>> We need to strike a balance between global owasp and local chapters.
>> So if a chapter event suffers a loss, shall chapter leaders be liable?
>> Eoin
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> BCC Risk Advisory
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2012, at 20:52, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I respectfully disagree.  If you're asking if 4 AppSec Conferences in
>> their current form can support all of the current and future plans of the
>> Foundation, the answer is probably not.  To me, this indicates that it is
>> not a matter of "simple math", but rather a matter of re-realizing the
>> numbers as Foundation revenue = AppSec Profits + Sponsorships + Memberships
>> and the expenses as the "cans", "shoulds", and "musts" that we can make
>> happen using that revenue.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh that does not answer my question.
>>> This is simple maths. I need to see the figures.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eoin Keary
>>> BCC Risk Advisory
>>> Owasp Global Board
>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2012, at 19:37, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eoin,
>>>
>>> To be blunt, on the expense side I'm simply saying that there are things
>>> that we can do, things that we should do, and things that we must do.  If
>>> you're asking for my personal opinion, I think that a good number of the
>>> things on your list fall under that "can" category and decisions to carry
>>> through with them should be based on the overall value to the organization
>>> combined with us having the money and the people resources to do them.  I
>>> might even argue that spreading $50k over 50 chapters to see what they
>>> could accomplish with it would be far more valuable to OWASP's mission of
>>> making application security visible than some of the other things I've seen
>>> the organization spend that kind of money on in the past.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>> So to clarify,
>>>> We are saying 4 events a year are going to pay for
>>>>
>>>> Employees
>>>> Legal
>>>> Accounting
>>>> Project funding
>>>> A summit
>>>> Owasp on tour
>>>> Internships
>>>> Any loses incurred from events.
>>>> etc
>>>> etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm no accountant but........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>> BCC Risk Advisory
>>>> Owasp Global Board
>>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21 Mar 2012, at 16:49, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure if I gave it some significant thought I could come up with a
>>>> bunch more, but here's a few off the top of my head:
>>>>
>>>> * We give away a TON of free passes to AppSec (I heard someone say like
>>>> 40% IIRC).  Charging a reduced rate or even a minimal fee would
>>>> significantly increase the profit margin.
>>>>
>>>> * Instead of spending time and energy focusing on non-AppSec events we
>>>> could use that to find additional sponsorships for AppSec events.  Also, if
>>>> the GConfC used it's resources to handle only the sponsorship portion of
>>>> AppSec it would leave the chapter open to solely focusing on throwing a
>>>> great event.
>>>>
>>>> * Focus on ways to promote AppSec outside of just the OWASP community.
>>>> There are a ton of people out there who care about security.  BlackHat,
>>>> RSA, DefCon, SANS, InfoSecWorld, etc are all proof that we are barely
>>>> scratching the surface with the 650 attendees we had at AppSec last year
>>>> (the largest to date I think).
>>>>
>>>> * Policies that encourage self-sustaining chapters means that they are
>>>> no longer tapping the Foundation for money.  Templates for creating events
>>>> that create self-sustaining chapters are event better.
>>>>
>>>> ~josh
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to hear your ideas but we should likely take that discussion
>>>>> offline.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I should probably add that while I'm happy to share those ideas with
>>>>>> the group, my view is that this is the core of the reason why the GConfC
>>>>>> needs to take a more active role in focusing on making the AppSec
>>>>>> Conferences successful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why my question was should the AppSec conferences provide
>>>>>>> the funding for the Foundation and not does it or will it.  It's a question
>>>>>>> about the ideology of the organization aimed to get a direction from the
>>>>>>> board.  It's not meant to address how things were, but rather how we think
>>>>>>> they should be.  Could the four AppSec events provide funding for the
>>>>>>> entire organization?  Absolutely.  I've got tons of ideas on how we could
>>>>>>> increase profit margins from these events and lower Foundation expenses to
>>>>>>> make it work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Mark Bristow <
>>>>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seba,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I actually do not believe that statement #1 is accurate.  I think
>>>>>>>> it's key to the conversation that a true revenue analysis be conducted here
>>>>>>>> not only in how much money we take in from different categories of events
>>>>>>>> (and memberships, sponsorships etc) but how much we spend on them as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:34 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 <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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>>>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>>>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>>>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>>>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark Bristow
>>>>> (703) 596-5175
>>>>> mark.bristow at owasp.org
>>>>>
>>>>> OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF
>>>>> OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu
>>>>> AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20120322/fe14f701/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list