[Owasp-board] Vote by eMail

Tom Brennan tomb at owasp.org
Mon Jan 14 23:58:46 UTC 2013


This goes in step with the 60/40 split voted on today - I believe you abstained. 

I abstained as a chapter leader hence a conflict as a hardworking "rich" chapter ;)



On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> This is just a classic philosophical debate that spans OWASP chapters,
> most governments, and frankly, most gatherings of people where money is
> involved.
> 
> That question is:
> 
> Should money be managed by a central authority, or should that financial
> power be distributed to different sub-groups of the organization?
> 
> We already have 6 chapters that have saved 10,000$ or more in their
> coffers. Awesome.
> 
> Humans have a long history of forming central organizations that seize
> funds saved by sub-groups. Let's not be one of them.
> 
> If we do decided to change chapter policy on money, I do not think it
> should effect current saved funds. I hate to see chapters save money and
> have it taken away by a central authority. It's a great way to push away
> our most active volunteers.
> 
> There is also a very human tendency to spend money at or beyond a
> budget. There is great value is saving for the future; I do not think we
> should force a culture of spending.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
>> The board has two chapter leaders I believe Eoin and myself that know about the efforts of starting a chapter and maintaining one. 
>> 
>> So I would prefer to complete the vote as motioned from 2012 and not change the motion as discussed with the chapters committee that resulted in the motion in November and send a clear message to struggling chapters to drive the mission regionally.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Are you really suggesting that OWASP turn into Robin Hood and steal from the chapters that bust their asses to raise funds in order to feed the chapters who do absolutely nothing outside of holding a meeting every now and then?  I'm all for the foundation kicking $500 at these stagnant chapters to see if they can come up with innovative ways to spend it, but I don't think that we should be taking funds from other chapters to do so regardless of how long they've been sitting around.  If you're concerned about stagnant funds, then there are other ways to address those in order to route them back to the Foundation for re-use, but not without exploring the rationale with each chapter as to why they aren't spending their funds.  They could be saving up for something big (a conference?), trying to keep enough to cover expenses for multiple years, or some other reason.  In any case, contributions from the chapters should always be entirely optional for this, projects, or any other non-cha
> pter endeavor.
>>> 
>>> ~josh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> What about the idea of moving this to an initiative? An idea:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Unused chapter funds go into this pool. Unused funds = no chapter funds use for 12 months
>>>> 2. Any chapter can contribute to the pool. Successful chapters can allocate a small amount of funds to help other chapters in need.
>>>> 3. Foundations contributes 5 slots of $500 to kick off idea.
>>>> 
>>>> -michael
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
>>>> michael-coates.blogspot.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Samantha Groves <samantha.groves at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>> I think this is a great idea. I would like to see some of the chapters start to support projects as well. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sam G. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> In terms of the 35k allocated in the budget for Marketing, this has already been allocated towards the marketing and graphic designer that we hired for the foundation initiative (based on the RFP distributed in May of last year). 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The money for investing in chapters and outreach should come out of the OWASP on the Move (line 60) and Chapter Support (line 64) in the 2013 budge, which have been allocated $5,000 each.  Link to budget: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhI4iTO_QojvdEVpZXU4WDRVbFhvM2FuLTU1Mlg3a1E#gid=0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This sounds like a good place for some of the chapters with larger buckets of funds to jump in and help support other chapters....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Sarah
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thoughts inline. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok 25k
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's coming from the OWASP marketing bucket that is funded by membership funds and sponsorship income.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kate & Sarah, how does this sound with your plans for those funds? This is line 51. We have 35k budgeted, so 25k would be a large percentage of that bucket.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We need to budget funds for mission outreach and having nothing allocated for a a single chapter initiative for chapter startup is disappointing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> By nature, the chapter split for membership is an investment in our chapters. I'd be happy to see inactive funds in that area being pooled and used to support these types of chapter activities.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Remember the pie chart effect.  What % of income is re-invested into the outreach for chapters. What % is allocated to administrative staff what percentage is allocated to It infrastructure etc etc. That will be shown in the annual report and 25k is a good number to use but I suspect it will be 1/2 of that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, do we have anyone developing this pie chart? Would be good to clearly see our current state.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OWASP has not had a abuse case in this area and we have the policy to manage to.   
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yup, no objections on that front at all. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tom Brennan 
>>>>>>>> International Board of Directors
>>>>>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>>>>>> O: 973-202-0122
>>>>>>>> www.owasp.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My first question is regarding the funding of this idea. Where is the $500 coming from?
>>>>>>>>> If we estimate that 25% of the ~200 chapters take advantage of this offer, then we have an estimated cost of $25,000.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
>>>>>>>>> michael-coates.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Per the bylaws here is the motion by email again that we did not vote on during 12-Nov-2012 meeting ( https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Nov_12,_2012 ) and we  did not have time today for during the last email thread on Q4-2012 https://www.owasp.org/index.php/January_14,_2013
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Motion:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 1.      Provide each officially recognized OWASP Foundation chapter as of 12/31/2013 with a $500.00usd allocation to assist with hosting a meeting(s) in 2013.  What this will do is empower the local chapter and enable them to drive awareness in their region of the world.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> a.      Caveats
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> i.      Chapters must first use all funds allocated in their donation scoreboard before being able to “tap” the $500  https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Donation_Scoreboard
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ii.     Existing policy governs reimbursement: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Chapter_Handbook/Chapter_4:_Chapter_Administration#Additional_Expense_Policies
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> iii.    They should be used in Q1 by March 31st  connected to hosting a meeting/promotion of OWASP in the local region or this offer will expire.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As extremely active chapter leader that does not need the funds (NY/NJ) this would not affect our local chapter directly hence instead of abstaining I am voting to approve
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This and other ideas can be captured at this location for community discussion wisdom of crowds in the future https://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=204888
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Director
>>>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> sarah.baso at owasp.org
>>>>>> +1.312.869.2779
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Samantha Groves, MBA
>>>>> OWASP Project Manager
>>>>> 
>>>>> The OWASP Foundation
>>>>> London, United Kingdom
>>>>> Email: samantha.groves at owasp.org
>>>>> Skype: samanthahz 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Book a Meeting with Me
>>>>> OWASP Contact US Form
>>>>> New Project Application Form
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list