[Owasp-board] Vote by eMail

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Tue Jan 15 18:46:50 UTC 2013


Ah, here's where the idea started.  A few hundred or a few thousand is
beneficial because it can go back to the chapters via a chapter pool. This
way, any struggling chapter can reach out for $500 to kick start a great
series of events.  So, when we look at the idea full circle we see stagnant
chapter funds being pushed back to a chapter pool, which is used for
new/struggling chapters to kickstart and grow. Those chapters become
successful, kick a few bucks into the chapter pool (if they choose) and
then help grow other chapters.  Self sufficient growth of the chapter
ecosystem.

That's the idea at least :)

Good points on the focus being leadership. We should consider that in the
details part for sure.

-Michael


--
Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
michael-coates.blogspot.com


On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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/d39b5679/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list