[Owasp-board] Membership Policy and "Open"

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Feb 20 21:22:20 UTC 2014

I hear you gents. I'm just thinking we may want to add a note about our
code of ethics to the mission statement and meeting policy. Looks like this
is getting addresses in other ways so I'm cool.

Jim Manico
(808) 652-3805

On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>

Ah, this is Beverly different than how I read Jim's original email. Open vs
disruptive behavior. I'll follow the leaders thread for this conversation.

This seems like it can quickly be decided by pointing to our code of
ethics. Not sure if that really needs a mission statement update (which is
a big deal) to state that participation hinges on adherence to our ethics.
On Feb 20, 2014 8:35 AM, "Josh Sokol" <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> I don't think we're referring to space restrictions at all.  See the
> e-mail that I just sent to the leaders list for additional context here.
> ~josh
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org
> > wrote:
>> If the only scenario we are trying to accommodate here is the fact that
>> there is limited space in a physical building, then I dont think we need to
>> make any changes to the mission statement.
>> Free and open does not mean we can somehow accommodate 1000 people in a
>> small space or else we violate our mission. It means we don't have
>> artificial requirements on who can and can't attend. Am I missing something
>> to your concerns jim?
>>  On Feb 20, 2014 7:48 AM, "Josh Sokol" <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> In addition, the Chapter Leader Handbook (
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Chapter_Handbook/Chapter_7:_Organizing_Chapter_Meetings#Meeting_Venue)
>>> says that "As long as the meeting is free and open and doesn't violate
>>> other OWASP principals, a vendor's office space may be a great location to
>>> hold a meeting."  I'm willing to be there is other material in there as
>>> well that indicates that meetings should be open to all.
>>> I'm not sure how I feel about this btw.  I completely understand the
>>> context, but when your entire organization is founded on and preaches the
>>> concept of being free and open to everyone, changing that is a pretty
>>> significant change in direction, no matter what the catalyst is.
>>> ~josh
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>> Board,
>>>> I would like to revisit our mission statement and membership policy at
>>>> the next board meeting if not sooner.
>>>> Our mission statement says "everyone is free to participate in OWASP" (
>>>> http://www.owasp.org) and the Membership Revocation Policy says "A
>>>> revoked member IS permitted to attend OWASP meetings as they are open and
>>>> free by design." (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Membership_Revocation
>>>> )
>>>> I move that we change this. There are situations when OWASP meetings
>>>> are held at private companies with a limit to how many people can attend,
>>>> and certain folks wishing to attend may not be allowed to due to that
>>>> constraint. I would also like to consider changing the membership
>>>> revocation policy.
>>>> This is an incredibly difficult issue messing with the core of OWASP. I
>>>> I could be completely wrong here and ask for your help in this matter.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> OWASP 2x4 Member
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140220/5015b581/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list