[Owasp-board] OWASP Community Vote - Board Review
josh.sokol at owasp.org
Wed Apr 2 16:48:19 UTC 2014
I'm not sure why #3 couldn't be a valid option or why a survey couldn't
support a multiple choice answer?
On Apr 2, 2014 11:45 AM, "Fabio Cerullo" <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
> Thanks Josh. I believe could use the wording proposed but will remove
> option 3).
> The response has to be either yes/no...otherwise we are creating "grey"
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I have no issues with presenting a vote or otherwise to the leaders, but
>> I don't think that Fabio's poll presents what I've said above (the current
>> rule) appropriately. Options should be:
>> 1) Absolutely under no circumstances should commercial advertising be
>> allowed on the mailing lists for any reason.
>> 2) Commercial advertising on the mailing lists should be allowed as long
>> as the communication has been vetted by chapter leadership in advance for
>> value and appropriateness.
>> 3) Commercial advertisements should be allowed on mailing lists in order
>> to ensure that all vendors have an equal opportunity to promote their
>> products and services.
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> No offense meant, but this is spoken like a guy who has not run a
>> chapter. Quite frequently our leaders are presented with opportunities.
>> Many of these opportunities, while backed by commercial interests, are
>> offered for free or at significantly reduced cost to OWASP members.
>> Passing those opportunities along to members does not imply support of a
>> vendor, merely that an opportunity exists that could provide value. If you
>> want to add a disclaimer at the bottom of messages saying that the OWASP
>> Foundation does not endorse product or services, then I have no issue with
>> that, other than how you're ever going to actually enforce it. The only
>> issue with being vendor agnostic comes if a leader is excluding one vendor,
>> but allowing another in similar circumstances. Do you have examples where
>> this is the case?
>> My thought is that if we are going to generate a rule on this, it should
>> be that commericial SPAM from any vendor is not allowed on the mailing
>> lists, but it can be sent to the chapter leader for review and to pass
>> along if it provides value to our membership. A great example is the
>> Innotech Conference that comes to Austin annually. It's definitely a
>> commercial, for-profit, venture, but each year they provide us with a free
>> attendance code to provide to our membership. It definitely provides value
>> as they have lots of technology tracks and even a security track there.
>> Why would I not want to provide my membership with that opportunity just
>> because it is backed by a company that makes money?
>> I don't agree with the "let's make exceptions" approach either. Too much
>> red tape for something that should be in our leaders hands anyway. We
>> should trust our leadership to do the right thing, but have a process in
>> place to handle when they don't.
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I tend to agree with Eoin on this point. We really need to limit any
>> appearance of commercial activity. I would support a rule where "no
>> commercial spamming on OWASP lists" is the norm. We would have the make
>> exceptions such as ads in the the newsletter and similar...
>> Before making this call I think we should talk to the other chapter
>> leaders in regards to what they think about this.
>> - Jim
>> On 4/1/14, 8:57 AM, Eoin Keary wrote:
>> We don't want to jeopardise out charity status by promoting commercial
>> activities. A rule helps prevent that. A community vote help establish the
>> Just sayin...
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>> On 1 Apr 2014, at 19:04, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Sure. But sometimes chapters only have one person at the helm. And
>> if the leader is being selective without a good reason, then hopefully that
>> gets brought to the attention of our staff or the Board and we can handle
>> it. I don't think this is an issue until it is an issue.
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board