[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Tue Apr 1 00:30:43 UTC 2014


Sure am. I've been following the thread and am good to cast a yes vote here.

Thanks
On Mar 31, 2014 12:36 PM, "Josh Sokol" <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> I've got YES votes from:
>
> Josh
> Tom
> Jim
> Fabio
> Tobias
> Eoin
>
> Michael?  Are you out there?
>
> ~josh
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>>
>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 20:22, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Michael and Eoin?  Your votes please?
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that's a "YES" vote from:
>>>
>>> Josh
>>> Tom
>>> Jim
>>> Fabio
>>>
>>> Please let me know if I misinterpreted your "Aye" response Tom or your
>>> "I support the changes suggested to the bylaws" Fabio as a vote in favor.
>>> Michael, Tobias, and Eoin?  Do you have a vote in favor or against?
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK <
>>> tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aye.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brennan
>>>> 9732020122
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe my proposal has changed.
>>>>
>>>> Proposal: Add a new section to the OWASP Bylaws.
>>>>
>>>> SECTION 4.07  Participation. Participation in OWASP activities
>>>> (conferences, meetings, mailings lists, projects, etc) does not require
>>>> membership, but is subject to adherence to the OWASP Code of Ethics, and
>>>> OWASP leaders may revoke the privilege of participation to those who choose
>>>> not to abide by that code.  Notification of such a revocation must be made
>>>> to the individual in writing, with the OWASP Board of Directors CC'd for
>>>> inclusion in the Foundation records.  If an individual believes that this
>>>> revocation is unjustified, then they have the option to appeal the decision
>>>> by notifying the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days of the
>>>> original notification.
>>>> On Mar 27, 2014 5:33 AM, "Tobias" <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Josh and Jim,
>>>>> great, we have a second.
>>>>> @Josh: would you mind to spell out the proposal again just in case any
>>>>> of the specific wording has changed during the previous discussion?
>>>>> So that the board can focus the discussion and we could come to a
>>>>> vote.
>>>>> Thanks, Tobias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/14 21:50, Jim Manico wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok I second your motion and your notion, Josh.  Sorry, been listening
>>>>> to Smokey Robinson. It could have been worse, I could have said something
>>>>> like "If you feel like loving me, if you have the notion, I'll second that
>>>>> emotion" but decided against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aloha from Mumbai.
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/24/14, 7:15 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Bueller?  Bueller?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I please get a second and a vote?  This was sent out 3 weeks ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>  ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Sounds good Josh. Sorry for any confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/22/14, 12:24 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, what you're talking about is a process and I support
>>>>>> that.  What I've proposed (per what you all asked me to put together at the
>>>>>> Board meeting) is a policy via thr Bylaws that specifies the path of
>>>>>> revocation should that process fail to allow cooler heads to prevail.  They
>>>>>> are not mutually exclusive and are both important along the path toward
>>>>>> resolution one way or another.
>>>>>> On Mar 21, 2014 7:56 PM, "Jim Manico" <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like this process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) When conflict arises, first the chapter leads bring in the
>>>>>>> community manager to see if the dispute can be resolved.
>>>>>>> 2) If necessary, chapters can start a process to remove someone from
>>>>>>> the chapter. Community manager over-sees this to make sure it's done with
>>>>>>> integrity.
>>>>>>> 3) If the individual thinks the process is being done unfairly or
>>>>>>> they were removed unfairly, they can petition the board to get involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems reasonable to be. I want to make sure that competitive
>>>>>>> interests or corporate interests are not taking over a chapter and decide
>>>>>>> to remove someone to remove competition.
>>>>>>> - Jim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/22/14, 8:52 AM, GK Southwick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Completely fair and I believe that that was what Tom was suggesting,
>>>>>>> only that it shouldn't go straight to the BoD, unless there is no other
>>>>>>> recourse. We now have a Community Manager to handle mitigation, without
>>>>>>> having to involve the board in every little dispute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Don't get me wrong, I know that completely ostracizing someone
>>>>>>> from the community is not a  "little" dispute, by any means. But I also
>>>>>>> believe that there's a time and place for escalation and we can start every
>>>>>>> appeal at a lower level than the BoD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  -= GK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Community Manager
>>>>>>>  OWASP Foundation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
>>>>>>> +01.415.742.2342
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Since this is about someone getting pushed out of the community
>>>>>>>> in a big way, something against our DNA, I want to make sure they have the
>>>>>>>> ability to appeal to the board after the community review process is
>>>>>>>> complete. Fair?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jim Manico
>>>>>>>> @Manicode
>>>>>>>> (808) 652-3805 <%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:58 AM, GK Southwick <
>>>>>>>> genevieve.southwick at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Absolutely. We don't need to escalate it to BoD review, unless
>>>>>>>> we can't agree to disagree at the community level first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  -= GK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Community Manager
>>>>>>>>  OWASP Foundation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
>>>>>>>> +01.415.742.2342
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " notifying the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the original notification"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  notifying the OWASP Community Manager in writing within 14 days
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> original notification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What that does is allow the staff to look at the issue.  If
>>>>>>>>> satisfaction resolution to either party is not made then it can be
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> on the agenda for a board meeting discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semper Fi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tom Brennan | OWASP Foundation
>>>>>>>>> Vice Chairman
>>>>>>>>> Main: +1 973 202 0122 <%2B1%20973%20202%200122>
>>>>>>>>> Skype: proactiverisk
>>>>>>>>> Web: http://www.owasp.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NYC CyberSocial 26 March
>>>>>>>>> http://www.meetup.com/OWASP-NYC/events/169653782/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NJ CyberSocial 27 March
>>>>>>>>> http://www.meetup.com/OWASP-New-Jersey/events/169975572/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > Does anyone else have any comments on this?  Tobias asked if "in
>>>>>>>>> writing"
>>>>>>>>> > includes e-mail, but otherwise that's the only comment I
>>>>>>>>> received.  Can I
>>>>>>>>> > have a second please so that we can proceed with a vote?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Proposal: Add a new section to the OWASP Bylaws.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > SECTION 4.07  Participation. Participation in OWASP activities
>>>>>>>>> (conferences,
>>>>>>>>> > meetings, mailings lists, projects, etc) does not require
>>>>>>>>> membership, but is
>>>>>>>>> > subject to adherence to the OWASP Code of Ethics, and OWASP
>>>>>>>>> leaders may
>>>>>>>>> > revoke the privilege of participation to those who choose not to
>>>>>>>>> abide by
>>>>>>>>> > that code.  Notification of such a revocation must be made to
>>>>>>>>> the individual
>>>>>>>>> > in writing, with the OWASP Board of Directors CC'd for inclusion
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> > Foundation records.  If an individual believes that this
>>>>>>>>> revocation is
>>>>>>>>> > unjustified, then they have the option to appeal the decision by
>>>>>>>>> notifying
>>>>>>>>> > the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days of the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> > notification.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > ~josh
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>>> >> sounds good.
>>>>>>>>> >> One question to the lawyers among us: does "in writing" include
>>>>>>>>> per email?
>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks, Tobias
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> On 03/03/14 16:12, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> As requested, I have re-worded the proposed addition to the
>>>>>>>>> Bylaws to
>>>>>>>>> >> include information about notification and an appeals process.
>>>>>>>>>  Also, since
>>>>>>>>> >> the most logical place to put this is in the membership section
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> >> bylaws, I modified to say that participation does not require
>>>>>>>>> membership.
>>>>>>>>> >> Please discuss.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Proposal: Add a new section to the OWASP Bylaws.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> SECTION 4.07  Participation. Participation in OWASP activities
>>>>>>>>> >> (conferences, meetings, mailings lists, projects, etc) does not
>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>> >> membership, but is subject to adherence to the OWASP Code of
>>>>>>>>> Ethics, and
>>>>>>>>> >> OWASP leaders may revoke the privilege of participation to
>>>>>>>>> those who choose
>>>>>>>>> >> not to abide by that code.  Notification of such a revocation
>>>>>>>>> must be made
>>>>>>>>> >> to the individual in writing, with the OWASP Board of Directors
>>>>>>>>> CC'd for
>>>>>>>>> >> inclusion in the Foundation records.  If an individual believes
>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>> >> revocation is unjustified, then they have the option to appeal
>>>>>>>>> the decision
>>>>>>>>> >> by notifying the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14
>>>>>>>>> days of the
>>>>>>>>> >> original notification.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> ~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
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140331/5172bc88/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list