[Owasp-board] 2014 Board Meeting Dates
Tobias
tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Tue Dec 17 22:56:59 UTC 2013
Personally, I like both: shorter more frequent meetings and 1-2 long
meetings during the AppSecs in US and EU. I have hesitations with long
(aka 4hours+) meetings, where everybody is only on the phone.
I also like Eoin's idea of 2 3hr meetings (1 weekday, 1 weekend)
Maybe we can find a good mix?
E.g. let's say 3 meetings of 2-3 hours every 2 months in the first half,
then a long meeting during AppSecEU, then if need be one 2-3 hr meeting,
then long meeting at AppSecUS, then one or two 2-3hr meetings before
year-end.
Just my 5cents, Tobias
On 17/12/13 22:44, Michael Coates wrote:
> I understand. So I see two items:
>
> 1. Scheduling that works best for the board
> 2. Length and frequency of the meetings
>
> Everyone agrees we should work together on item #1 and will do so with
> a doodle when the time comes. However, scheduling is based upon our
> approach in item #2.
>
> If I'm understanding correctly Josh is asking that we revisit item #2.
> For many years we held monthly 1-2 hr meetings. The last vote was to
> move to quarterly 6 hr meetings based on our experiences and value
> with the longer spots. I'm hesitant to reopen an item we've just
> recently agreed upon, but there's certainly no harm in discussion and
> adjusting if we have new items to consider.
>
> Does anyone have comments, concerns, or suggestions on the length and
> frequency of the meetings?
> Eoin - voiced his opinions in support of meetings outside of business
> hours and also offered another suggestion of 2 meetings per quarter, 3
> hrs each. One on a weekend and one on a weekday.
> Michael - I definitely think the monthly meeting had less value then
> the long meetings. My first preference is the quarterly 6 hour
> meeting. I'm also open to Eoin's idea of 2 3 hr meetings - 1 weekday,
> 1 weekend.
>
> Others?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> Chair, Global Board
> OWASP
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure you understand. I'm not proposing an alternative.
> I'm proposing that we re-evaluate what works best for the Board.
> If I proposed an alternative, it would be based on what is best
> for me exclusively and ignores what works for others. Maybe we
> can put together a Doodle with some pre-defined two-hour time
> blocks and see if we can find something that works well for everyone.
>
> For example, Fridays 12 PM CST would work just fine for me and
> would be 6 PM for Eoin in Dublin (after billable hours) and Fabio
> and noon in Hong Kong for Tobias. Would that work?
>
> ~josh
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Michael Coates
> <michael.coates at owasp.org <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> I'm on board with finding something that works for all.
>
> What alternative would you like to propose for consideration
> and vote?
>
> Currently our approach is to find 4 dates where we have 6 hour
> board meetings. The goal is to attach these to in person
> events when possible (AppSec conferences) since there is value
> in having people together in person for the board meeting.
> When not possible we are aiming for Saturdays.
>
> Would you like to propose an alternative for a vote or are you
> good working through the above process to find 4 dates that
> work for everyone?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> Chair, Global Board
> OWASP
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Josh Sokol
> <josh.sokol at owasp.org <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I understand the requirement and am not debating it nor
> the merits of having regular meetings. In fact, my cause
> for concern here is to ensure that everyone (including
> myself) is able to meet this requirement. But holding the
> new Board accountable to the previous Board's scheduling
> desires does not seem like the appropriate way to ensure
> this. Hence, my request to re-organize based on the
> collective needs and desires of all of the Board members.
> I'm sure that your unanimous vote was appropriate for
> those who served before, but it is irrelevant for the new
> Board. I'm not sure what the issue is with me requesting
> a new vote on the dates that work best for everyone. This
> seems like a fairly simple and benign request to ensure
> that everyone can participate to their fullest extent and
> by shooting it down it feels like the needs and desires of
> the new Board members are being subjugated by those of the
> old Board members. If we are all truly equals here, then
> trying to find a schedule that works toward everyone's
> best interest shouldn't be an issue. Simply put, I had no
> say in the Board schedule previously, but would like to be
> able to have a voice in the one that I am required by the
> Bylaws to uphold.
>
> ~josh
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Michael Coates
> <michael.coates at owasp.org
> <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> The attendance requirements are in the bylaws and have
> been there for quite some time (i.e. before the move
> to 4 quarterly meetings). There are many items in the
> bylaws determined by previous boards that apply to all
> of us
> Please be sure to be aware of all of these
> responsibilities in your role.
>
> The purpose of discussing the dates now is so we can
> find dates that allow everyone to attend. With our
> advanced planning we can all plan to attend all 4
> events and in the event of an emergency we'll still
> make 3 of the 4.
>
> I'll leave it to others if they want to hold a new
> vote on an issue we just voted in a few weeks back. No
> preference from me here. My personal view is the
> unanimous vote was based on a good plan and feedback
> from many board meetings over many years.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> Chair, Global Board
> OWASP
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Josh Sokol
> <josh.sokol at owasp.org <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>>
> wrote:
>
> I have requested access to the document. Please
> approve.
>
> I strongly disagree with your recommendation. It
> is based on a vote that took place when 3 out of 7
> of the Board members weren't even able to
> participate. That's not even a quorum amongst the
> current Board. I believe that the dates should be
> decided as a group with the participation of the
> full group of Board members who will be subject to
> the dates. It is unfair to enforce a 3/4
> attendance policy based on dates and days that
> were not agreed to in advance. With each new
> Board, we should be re-evaluating several many
> factors to ensure that our selected dates and
> times are good for everybody:
>
> 1) The day of the week.
> 2) The time of the day.
> 3) The duration of the meeting.
>
> If we can't get a quorum agreeing to these
> factors, then there is no point in having a
> meeting as nothing can be voted on.
>
> ~josh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Michael Coates
> <michael.coates at owasp.org
> <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> Board + Sarah,
>
> To facilitate suggested times can you help me
> complete the following?
>
> This page has everyone's primary timezone and
> which appsec events they're attending.
> https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/document/d/1zFDK7FYmk1ZSqjiJImxLrfX36xtaHXOsq67IwT2iq3w/edit
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> Chair, Global Board
> OWASP
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Michael
> Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org
> <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> Unless we have a large group that wants to
> dramatically change our approach I
> recommend we stay with our unanimous vote
> from the board meeting. I recognize that
> people have other things going on in life,
> we all do, and the decision to volunteer
> time towards an OWASP board role is no
> small commitment. The goal of scheduling
> the meetings for all of 2014 is so we can
> plan and accommodate these important meetings.
>
> I'll start a doodle with several options
> for us to evaluate. We'll need to agree on
> dates that can accommodate everyone with
> the understanding that attendance (in
> person or virtual) is required at 3 of 4
> meetings.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> Chair, Global Board
> OWASP
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Eoin
> <eoinkeary at gmail.com
> <mailto:eoinkeary at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Could we do two 3h meetings a quarter?
> 1 on weekends and 1 during the working
> week....
>
>
>
>
> On 17 December 2013 12:55, Josh Sokol
> <josh.sokol at owasp.org
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> Sure. If you were always 100%
> booked it could. Likewise, it
> will always take that time away
> from my family and force me to
> cancel recurring lessons for my
> kids that I've already got
> planned. I've got two days a week
> to spend with my family. You've
> got 5 days to work. Regardless,
> I'm willing to compromise, but
> will not do two 6hr Sat meetings.
> One would be hard enough to explain.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Dec 17, 2013 2:18 AM, "Eoin
> Keary" <eoinkeary at gmail.com
> <mailto:eoinkeary at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I can't do 6hr meets during
> working week.
> I have bills to pay. That
> could cost me circa $1200 to
> do the meeting.
>
>
> Eoin Keary
> Owasp Global Board
> +353 87 977 2988
> <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 02:12, Josh
> Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems kinda crappy that the
>> old board decides the
>> duration and days that the
>> new board will meet. I'd
>> like to propose a new vote
>> amongst the new board in
>> order to determine whether
>> this is still the most
>> convenient for everyone.
>>
>> Personally, I have no issue
>> with 6 hr meetings if its
>> during the work week. I also
>> have no issue with shorter
>> meetings if they are on the
>> weekend. I take issue with
>> the combination as it takes
>> significant time away from my
>> family and I already have
>> things scheduled for my
>> children on Saturdays.
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2013 6:28 PM,
>> "Michael Coates"
>> <michael.coates at owasp.org
>> <mailto:michael.coates at owasp.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's not just me. This
>> was voted on during the
>> board meeting at Europe.
>> 6 hr meetings provide
>> time to get stuff done.
>> The consensus was that
>> each year the board would
>> plan the events for the
>> following year. They
>> would be on Saturdays or
>> in some cases week days
>> to align with AppSec events.
>>
>> Vote was aug 19 -
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Votes
>>
>>
>> Regarding the selected
>> dates, 3 out of 4 are
>> good, but I can't do the
>> June 27 date.
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Coates
>> Chair, Global Board
>> OWASP
>> @_mwc
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at
>> 10:07 AM, Josh Sokol
>> <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If we were only doing
>> 1-2 hours once a
>> month, then Saturday
>> would probably be
>> fine, but since it
>> seemed that Michael
>> really wanted to go
>> for longer meetings
>> once a quarter, I
>> would much prefer to
>> do these during the
>> week where it does
>> not impact the
>> limited amount of
>> time I have with my
>> family.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013
>> at 12:03 PM, Sarah
>> Baso
>> <sarah.baso at owasp.org
>> <mailto:sarah.baso at owasp.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Board member -
>>
>> *No meeting next
>> monday (23rd), I
>> will update the
>> meeting invite. *
>>
>> We do need to
>> finalize the
>> meeting dates for
>> next year to get
>> them on the
>> calendar so
>> everyone can plan
>> accordingly:
>>
>> Here were my
>> suggestions to
>> get the ball rolling:
>>
>> *
>>
>> Saturday
>> April 12 or
>> 19 (after end
>> of Q1 with
>> sufficient
>> time for
>> Alison to
>> reconcile
>> reports) We
>> also should
>> have a wrap
>> up of 2013
>> finances by
>> then for review
>>
>> *
>>
>> Friday June
>> 27 in person
>> in Cambridge
>> (conference
>> is Monday -
>> Thursday June
>> 23-26th)
>>
>> *
>>
>> Monday
>> September
>> 15th in
>> person in
>> Denver
>> (conference
>> is Tuesday -
>> Friday Sept
>> 16-19th)
>>
>> *
>>
>> Saturday Nov
>> 8 or 15 - new
>> board members
>> are elected
>> and planning
>> for 2015.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Sarah
>>
>> --
>> Executive Director
>> OWASP Foundation
>>
>> sarah.baso at owasp.org
>> <mailto:sarah.baso at owasp.org>
>> +1.312.869.2779
>> <tel:%2B1.312.869.2779>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board
>> mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
>
> --
> Eoin Keary
> OWASP Global Board Member
> OWASP Code Review Guide Lead Author
>
> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>
> http://twitter.com/BCCRiskAdvisory
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> <mailto: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/20131217/dfde31ae/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Owasp-board
mailing list