[Owasp-board] OWASP Community Vote - Board Review

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Wed Apr 2 16:54:46 UTC 2014


The benefit of including an item is to have something be officially an
option and then the results show that no one supports it. On the other
hand, if we have a lot of people that support something like this then we
probably need to have a heart to heart with the community and some of our
principles to understand the unexpected difference.


--
Michael Coates
@_mwc



On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:

> Because it will dilute the responses.
>
> Also, option 3 crosses the line of allowing everyone to spam the mailing
> list with commercial offerings without vetting (something we definitely
> don't want to do).
>
> Fabio
>
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> 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"
>> areas.
>>
>> Fabio
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> 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
>> rule.
>> Just sayin...
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140402/e655571c/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list