[Owasp-board] Vote Request - OWASP Participation at RSA

Sarah Baso sarah.baso at owasp.org
Tue Jan 7 00:36:06 UTC 2014


Correct - the repercussions are the forfeiture of associated benefits.




On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:

> The vote is to terminate and, if possible, still offer the free training.
> Since the training is a perk of the agreement it may not be.
>
> Sarah,
>
> Can you clarify any repercussions for cancelling the contract. I don't
> believe there are any aside from possible forfeiture of associated benefits.
>
>
> Regarding the thread - great work. I mentioned it my response to the
> thread too. I think the thread was a great discussion and now it's our job
> to vote on a decision forward.
>
>
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> What are the termination conditions of the contract? You are voting to
>> terminate anyways, no?
>>
>> Yes, that's correct the 150 email thread was started by myself, it's what
>> I was voted in to do; question, listen an help protect and grow the
>> foundation.
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>>
>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 00:13, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Eoin,
>>
>> "Why are we obsessed with RSA when we have an alternate venue?"
>> Two reasons:
>> 1. We're dropping out of a contract
>> 2. It's an important issue with 150 emails in the thread from our
>> community(as you know).
>>
>> We have to be thoughtful and handle through appropriate voting channels.
>>
>> Also, I captured my thoughts* in the thread to the leaders list, but I
>> disagree with an approach where we evaluate our perception of accusations
>> and ethics for events we wish to speak at. By that measure we would need to
>> fully evaluate the ethics of bsides or blackhat before deciding to speak at
>> their events. Ethics and judgement aren't our mission.
>>
>> *http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2014-January/010647.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Coates
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. Why are we obsessed with RSA when we have an alternate
>>> venue? Why take the risk of damaging the foundation? Bsides has an
>>> identical offering and no bad vibes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eoin Keary
>>> Owasp Global Board
>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2014, at 23:44, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in full agreement as Michael stated.  We should cancel the marketing
>>> agreement and offer to continue the training without it.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>> On Jan 6, 2014 4:31 PM, "Michael Coates" <michael.coates at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Board,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to request a vote on OWASP's participation at RSA. I've
>>>> captured my position on the public OWASP thread.
>>>> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2014-January/010647.html
>>>>
>>>> Please provide any discussion to the vote or cast your vote. Note that
>>>> this is a time sensitive issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My vote request is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> OWASP will terminate the co-marketing agreement with RSA for RSA 2014.
>>>> This may place our training at risk, but if permitted we will still
>>>> provide the free training at RSA and the OWASP speaking slot.
>>>>
>>>> Board Votes:
>>>> Michael
>>>> Tom
>>>> Tobias
>>>> Fabio
>>>> Josh
>>>> Jim
>>>> Eoin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: Unrelated to the vote - we can still provide free training at
>>>> BSides too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Coates
>>>> Chair of OWASP Board
>>>> @_mwc
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


-- 
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/20140106/9fba099a/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list