[Owasp-board] Profit Sharing Policy for Local Events

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Fri Aug 30 02:11:54 UTC 2013


Just try to make sure we weren't confusing anyone. I'm all for open
discussion too.

Sounds like all is clear.
On Aug 29, 2013 5:57 PM, "Jim Manico" <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Mixed messages? What are you talking about?
>
> I was stating an opinion. Of course we vote on these issues as a board.
> Did I imply otherwise? No way. We are having an open and transparent
> conversation which is a good thing. When the time is right I'll add this to
> the next board meeting agenda. But in the mean time, it's appropriate to
> discuss this on the board list in a public and transparent way.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
>
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:35 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Board,
>
> Let's not send mix messages here. It's interesting to state our opinions
> on the matter, but a decision like this would require a board vote. I'm
> stating this so it's not confusing to Josh whether or not something has
> changed.
>
> I've stated my opinion earlier in the thread. If Jim wants to add this as
> an agenda item on the next board call then we can discuss further.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> To clarify one thing here, LASCON 2010 and 2011 were both OWASP
>> conferences run by our local chapter.  In years past, with no policy or
>> requirement to contribute funds back to the Foundation, we have donated $5k
>> or more.  Our donation to the OWASP Foundation wasn't an afterthought, a
>> suggestion, or a mandate, but rather, a line item in our budget.  We want
>> to support the Foundation, but feel like this new policy is a misguided
>> attempt to address a "ring-fenced funds" issue by limiting a chapters
>> ability to make money, rather than influencing how they spend it.  Not only
>> that, but it provides no scaling of profit based on size of the event nor
>> financial need of the chapter.
>>
>> In terms of staff resources, we utilize the bare minimum of staff
>> resources which is required by the Foundation.  Being an OWASP event, we
>> are forced to run our events through CVENT, forced to use the Foundation
>> for taking money in and writing checks, and forced to use the Foundation
>> for signing contracts.  In the past, we have also paid (out of the
>> conference budget) for Kate to come and assist us during the conference
>> with registration.  Other than that, the entire conference is planned in
>> relative isolation from the OWASP Foundation.  All website activities,
>> volunteers, trainings, presentations, marketing, graphics, sponsorships,
>> and more is performed by members of our local planning team.  The only
>> thing that we could do less of in terms of utilizing Foundation staff
>> resources is removing Foundation mandated activities or not having
>> Foundation staff onsite the day of the conference.  I don't think either of
>> these would be an issue if the Board preferred that.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>wrote:
>>
>>> I support this proposal. Josh had a very solid conference with
>>> significant profit before it became an OWASP conference. We are pretty
>>> lucky he agreed to make his already success conference OWASP branded. This
>>> is also a significant experiment in seeing how a chapter can build serious
>>> funds so they can fund a major national-level conference without needing
>>> foundation funds or risk.
>>>
>>> I would not support this for any OWASP event, but I do think Josh has
>>> demonstrated his dedication to his OWASP chapter and spreading the word on
>>> AppSec in a fairly independent way.
>>>
>>> Josh, since you will be getting additional profit, perhaps you will need
>>> less of the full time staff resources?
>>>
>>> But yes, I support this.
>>> - Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> > Board,
>>> >
>>> > In preparing to sign contracts for our LASCON 2014 event, it was
>>> brought to
>>> > the teams attention that we had to agree to a new profit sharing
>>> policy in
>>> > order to proceed.  The problem is that because $5k is used as the
>>> margin
>>> > between a 90/10 split and a 40/60 split, the new profit sharing policy
>>> > takes our chapter cut of the LASCON profits down to somewhere around
>>> 50%.
>>> > We've had several objections from our core team members on doing that
>>> much
>>> > work and realizing such a small cut of the reward.  Since the new
>>> profit
>>> > sharing policy was designed without scale in mind, I'd like to ask
>>> that for
>>> > the LASCON event only, we raise this margin to $10k.  Here's some rough
>>> > math based on 2011 numbers:
>>> >
>>> > *Current Model*
>>> > $17k profit
>>> > $5k margin
>>> > Chapter Cut = $4500 (90/10 split) + $4800 (40/60 split) = $9300
>>> > Foundation Cut = $500 (10/90 split) + $7200 (60/40 split) = $7700
>>> > Realized Percentage Split = 55% Chapter / 45% Foundation
>>> >
>>> > *Proposed Model*
>>> > $17k profit
>>> > $10k margin
>>> > Chapter Cut = $9000 (90/10 split) + $2800 (40/60 split) = $11800
>>> > Foundation Cut = $1000 (10/90 split) + $4200 (60/40 split) = $5200
>>> > Realized Percentage Split = 69% Chapter / 31% Foundation
>>> >
>>> > This still amounts to a realized 70/30 split between the Chapter and
>>> > Foundation which, IMHO, is still a lot of money considering the limited
>>> > assistance provided to us by the Foundation.  As an additional
>>> reference
>>> > point, it is also more money raised for the Foundation than any other
>>> > Chapter organized activity.
>>> >
>>> > I had really hoped that the Board would have come up with a profit
>>> sharing
>>> > model that did not require us to be granted an exception year over
>>> year,
>>> > but despite clear objections from me and a "NO" vote from Tom, the
>>> > remaining Board members appears to have passed the proposal anyway.
>>>  Thus,
>>> > my request that before we sign the paperwork guaranteeing a LASCON
>>> 2014, we
>>> > raise this margin from $5k to $10k for our event only (leaving the
>>> > percentage splits in tact).  This will provide enough revenue for our
>>> > chapter to continue to thrive and innovate as we have done in the past
>>> > while at the same time ensuring that the OWASP Foundation receives an
>>> ample
>>> > cut for any of our borrowed resources that we cannot directly expense
>>> back
>>> > to the conference.  Does this sound agreeable?  Thank you for your
>>> time and
>>> > comments.
>>> >
>>> > ~josh
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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/20130829/0acf7d58/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list