[Owasp-board] [Owasp-leaders] OWASP.next
josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Apr 10 22:19:26 UTC 2014
There are a few different interpretations of "proper support" and I want to
make sure I'm understanding you correctly:
1) I couldn't get a Board member to sponsor this initiative.
If this is the case, then sign me up. I'm not sure I can put together all
of the details that I asked you for, but I think the idea has merit and am
willing to support/explore it as an option.
2) I tried and couldn't make it work.
If this is the case, then I'm not sure what to say. I love the concept,
but as I said the devil is in the details and I'm not sure how it would
work in practice.
3) I stated an interest and nobody wanted to help.
If this is the case, then maybe it's just a situation where you want
something really bad, but they majority doesn't see the value in it as much
as you do. If you don't have enough motivation to pursue, and others are
willing to discuss it with you but don't have the motivation to pursue,
then I'd start to question whether it's actually something worth pursuing.
If you change your mind about that, then let me know as I'm happy to walk
the path with you.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Abbas Naderi <abiusx at owasp.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately I have tried a few times to do this, but without proper
> support it is just a dead cause. Its not that i’m trying to state my
> opinion here, I’m trying to describe issues that several members of the
> community face, and have discussed to me in person, but don’t have enough
> motivation to pursue. Its not about me, its about making the community a
> better place for everyone. Its about saving it.
> *Notice:* This message is *digitally signed*, its *source* and *integrity* are
> If you mail client does not support S/MIME verification, it will display a
> file (smime.p7s), which includes the X.509 certificate and the signature
> body. Read more at Certified E-Mail with Comodo and Thunderbird<http://abiusx.com/certified-e-mail-with-comodo-and-thunderbird/> in
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> Just because you didn't get elected doesn't mean that you have to throw in
> the towel. I know what I promised to do when I ran for a Board seat, but
> can't say that I remember everything that everyone else said they would
> do. As with anything, the devil is in the details, but I'm certainly not
> opposed to your idea. I don't think there's anything currently stopping
> you from running a petition if you feel that the Board has done something
> egregious that needs to be undone. The couple of initiatives that I've
> passed since being elected were done with unanimous support of the Board
> and majority support from those who responded from the community
> inquiries. The concept of a veto is a bit more difficult to enforce and
> I'm curious how this would work in practice. Is there a percentage of
> people that would have to respond to a veto request? Do they have to be
> members? Is there a number of "in favor" votes that has to be reached for
> it to be successful? Is there a time constraint on how long after an
> action is initiated that it can be repealed? Are there others in the
> community who feel like the Board has done something so egregiously bad
> that it needs to be repealed? Regardless, I'd be happy to work with you to
> set up a formal proposal here if you'd like to do so?
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Abbas Naderi <abiusx at owasp.org> wrote:
>> If you remember, I had similar ideas for the board, as I was running for
>> it as well. My idea was to allow a veto role for the community, because it
>> is not viable and clever to ask for community polls on typical matters, as
>> it does not involve everyone, and they clearly won’t participate when they
>> are not involved.
>> But a veto role, is a different matter. If someone in the community feels
>> undermined by a process enforced by the board, they can run their campaign,
>> get more votes and undo the decision they though was wrong in the first
>> place. This is what we need, and those decisions are really hurting people,
>> making them lose hope for the better in this community.
>> Unfortunately the previous board and the current board haven’t done
>> anything significant towards this, and it seems to me that no priority
>> effort is being made.
>> *Notice:* This message is *digitally signed*, its *source* and
>> *integrity* are verifiable.
>> If you mail client does not support S/MIME verification, it will display
>> a file (smime.p7s), which includes the X.509 certificate and the signature
>> body. Read more at Certified E-Mail with Comodo and Thunderbird<http://abiusx.com/certified-e-mail-with-comodo-and-thunderbird/> in
>> AbiusX.com <http://abiusx.com/>
>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> One of the ideas that I (and I believe Tobias as well) championed when
>> running for the Board was the idea of bringing the power back to the
>> community. I have raised this as an item to the Board with the hopes of
>> adding a sort of community referendum to the election later this year. In
>> the meantime, you have seen several examples of polling the community for
>> input on various topics and we are working to bring you a new voting
>> platform that will allow even more of this type of community inquiry. The
>> caveat is that people have to actually vote and, as is the case with the
>> latest poll, our "turnout" numbers have been relatively low. Since the
>> community is made up of more than just leaders, you've seen Michael's
>> proposal to transition to a full community involvement model instead of
>> just having a leaders list and hopefully this will increase those poll
>> numbers even more. In my opinion, the issues that you bring up are in
>> large part due to actions by the Board in the past and I do see the current
>> Board trying to address them. Change won't happen overnight, but I do see
>> us moving in the right direction. Hopefully you can stick around long
>> enough for us to right the ship.
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Abbas Naderi <abiusx at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> That is a perfectly valid explanation. I have been faced with several of
>>> these myself, and it has really affected the way I love and contribute to
>>> OWASP. Now when I have an idea, instead of making it an OWASP project, I
>>> look elsewhere for a platform, and all of you people know me and probably
>>> are aware of the contributions I have made to the community over several
>>> The list you provided is most of the cases, but there are definitely
>>> cases not mentioned there, like manipulating and forcing decisions and
>>> actions at the board level.
>>> I believe we need a change of management model for OWASP. This is
>>> clearly not working (IMHO) and these days I have a deep sensation of
>>> leaving it all for good and spending my time somewhere more productive.
>>> *Notice:* This message is *digitally signed*, its *source* and
>>> *integrity* are verifiable.
>>> If you mail client does not support S/MIME verification, it will display
>>> a file (smime.p7s), which includes the X.509 certificate and the signature
>>> body. Read more at Certified E-Mail with Comodo and Thunderbird<http://abiusx.com/certified-e-mail-with-comodo-and-thunderbird/> in
>>> AbiusX.com <http://abiusx.com/>
>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
>>> I applaud you Michael for taking the reigns of leadership and setting
>>> both a vision and a positive example for OWASP. What a great post! You
>>> have really captured the spirit of OWASP and I hope you succeed in keeping
>>> it alive. Like you, I stand behind both the awesome staff and community of
>>> However, I have great concerns about the future of OWASP, because the
>>> board serves as an example for the community. As you have indicated you
>>> cannot do this alone, we all have to pitch in. Not everybody on the board
>>> is a rotten apple, most of you are awesome. Unfortunately it only takes one
>>> rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel.
>>> Some examples I have observed of rotten leadership:
>>> - Publicly undermining OWASP employees by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - Publicly undermining OWASP volunteers by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - Privately undermining OWASP leaders by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - Privately undermining OWASP employees by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - Publicly undermining OWASP projects by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - Privately undermining OWASP projects by an OWASP Board member.
>>> - OWASP Board members have caused OWASP to lose money from
>>> conference revenues.
>>> - OWASP Board members have caused OWASP to lose corporate
>>> - OWASP Board members have caused OWASP to lose projects.
>>> - OWASP Board members have harassed OWASP employees privately.
>>> - OWASP Board members have abused OWASP employees publicly.
>>> All of these things have gone on habitually. Most of the time they are
>>> thinly veiled under the guise of 'ethics' and yet all of these behaviors
>>> are in direct conflict with the duty of loyalty to the OWASP foundation. *Additionally,
>>> it sets up an unprofessional example of 'standard of behavior' for the
>>> community to follow, and this is exactly what is happening.*
>>> I regularly hear from both sponsors and leaders that no longer want to
>>> participate in OWASP anymore due to the examples I have cited above. I
>>> spend my OWASP donation hours managing fires like this, when I could be
>>> building and contributing to the community with my precious little free
>>> It has come to a point that I may no longer recommend that the public
>>> join or support OWASP because of the unprofessional behavior emanating from
>>> the board. *And I feel it is a very sad day when I can not recommend
>>> OWASP, something I genuinely want to be proud to be a part of, to people I
>>> love and respect.*
>>> Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
>>> Email me, <dennis.groves at owasp.org> or schedule a meeting<http://goo.gl/8sPIy>
>>> *This email is licensed under a CC BY-ND 3.0
>>> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/deed.en_GB> license.*
>>> Stand up for your freedom to install free software.<http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot/statement>
>>> Please do not send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
>>> Send OpenDocument <http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/> instead!
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board