[Owasp-board] OWASP Community Vote - Board Review

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Wed Apr 2 16:56:27 UTC 2014


Couldn't have said it better myself.
On Apr 2, 2014 11:54 AM, "Michael Coates" <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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/20140402/39d0847e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list