[Owasp-board] Vote by eMail

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Tue Jan 15 18:39:13 UTC 2013


Michael,

Agreed 100%  Thank you for clarifying and re-centering the overall idea.  I
am much more comfortable with this approach.  One point of caution,
however, with classifying inactive as "X months"...  In my opinion,
inactivity is generally more of a reflection on the leadership and not on
the desire and/or ability for a city to support a chapter.  Inactive
chapters should have their leadership replaced and it'd be a shame for the
new leader to have their potential funds reallocated because the previous
leader couldn't get their shit together.  It's been a while since I've seen
the list of funds available to each chapter, but I'd imagine the ones with
the most funds are the ones who are among the most active.  Austin, MSP,
NY/NJ, San Antonio, etc.  I'd doubt that any of them would fall into an
inactive status based on any reasonable definition of the term.  So, this
leads me to question why we are discussing this in the first place?  We
take a few bucks from all of the truly inactive chapters out there and we
get what?  A few hundred dollars?  Maybe a thousand?  All that headache
just to make some future leaders life more difficult because they're now
starting from nothing.

If you ask me, we need to shift focus on this discussion and instead of
devising a scheme to take money from chapters, let's figure out how to get
the chapters to be self-sufficient.  This is what those successful chapters
who now have money in their accounts have done via sponsorships, membership
drives, and conferences.  OWASP in turn gets more money from it's "tax" on
those activities.  Everybody wins.  I've been saying this for years now and
for some reason people view self-sufficient chapters as the devil.  Give
your chapters a reason to thrive, create a culture of encouraging
innovation, and provide support for fledgling leaders so they can get there
eventually.  These are positive ways to encourage growth (both physically
and financially) within OWASP.  Much more constructive than having
conversations about how to rob from Peter to pay Paul.

~josh


On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Michael Coates
<michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:

> Josh,
>
> I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere. Let me try and recenter the
> overall idea.
>
> Idea: Stagnant funds in chapter buckets go to waste. They sit idle and
> don't benefit the mission in any way. Reallocating these funds to somewhere
> where they can be spent would benefit the mission. This could be a general
> chapter pool, this could be funding for a projects pool, towards
> scholarships, towards initiative X (there a lots of options).
>
> The details: The details are important. The idea is to apply this in
> situations where the chapter is not active. What does that mean?
> Chapter not active = no meetings in X months (perhaps x =12, we can
> discuss and find the right point).
>
> So, there is nothing forced about this. There is no stealing. Instead,
> it's trying to find a way to allocate money that falls into a dark void
> when a chapter goes inactive. To address your specific point, the Austin
> Chapter is very active. This idea is not intended to have any impact
> whatsoever on your chapter. "Frankly, within the bounds of the OWASP
> mission it doesn't matter what we spend that money on because we earned the
> right to spend it" Agreed!
>
> I hope this helps explain the spirit of the idea. If you agree with the
> overall spirit, then we can move into what defines an inactive chapter.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
> michael-coates.blogspot.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael, perhaps "stealing" is a bit much.  I'm curious what you would
>> call it if the government taxed you on every paycheck you made and then one
>> day realized that you had money in your checking or savings account that
>> you weren't spending and they decided to take it because you weren't using
>> it and they wanted to use it for someone or something else?
>>
>> With the new profit sharing policy, this is exactly what you would be
>> proposing here.  There is a split (aka a "centralized governance tax") on
>> every method a chapter has to make money: membership, sponsorship, and
>> events.  This effectively becomes that Chapters contribution back to the
>> activities of the Foundation (aka "the government").  I can't speak for all
>> of the other chapters with significant funds, but I know that the Austin
>> Chapter has paid what it feels is it's fair share back to support the
>> Foundation.  I realize that in the end it's just all one big pot of money
>> with admins tracking allocation amounts, but think for a moment about the
>> message you'd be sending by taking funds from active chapters without their
>> consent.  In the case of the Austin Chapter, we have those significant
>> funds because we busted our asses working for it.  Frankly, within the
>> bounds of the OWASP mission it doesn't matter what we spend that money on
>> because we earned the right to spend it.  Taking those funds without
>> consent takes away all incentive to make those funds in the first place.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, didn't mean to take it off thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
>>> michael-coates.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Michael Coates <
>>> michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think jumping to stealing is a bit much. This is a suggestion about
>>>> how to leverage funds that are sitting idle. Sure, there are edge cases, we
>>>> can flush this out. But money should be put to use to benefit OWASP, not
>>>> sit around collecting dust.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
>>>> michael-coates.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:17 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-chapter 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*<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*<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 theirdonation scoreboard before being able to “tap”
>>>>>>>>>>> the $500  *https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Donation_Scoreboard*<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
>>>>>>>>>>> *<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*<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 <http://goo.gl/mZXdZ>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OWASP Contact US Form <http://owasp4.owasp.org/contactus.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New Project Application Form<https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHZfWGhHZ0Z4UFFwZU42djBXcVVLSlE6MQ#gid=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20130115/9abb527c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list