[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Sarah Baso sarah.baso at owasp.org
Tue Apr 8 00:26:56 UTC 2014


I have updated the Board vote page:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Votes

And updated the Bylaws, posted new version here:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Foundation_ByLaws

Sarah


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> OK, the vote passes unanimously in favor.  Sarah, please document the
> results of the vote and have our Bylaws updated by adding a new section
> 4.07:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ~josh
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Executive Director
OWASP Foundation

sarah.baso at owasp.org
+1.312.869.2779
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140407/e411462a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list