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

Eoin eoin.keary at owasp.org
Tue Jan 7 10:08:12 UTC 2014


I am not voting but the topic that is up for vote is wrong in my opinion.

Some media, people in general will see OWASP participation in RSA as
negative, hence the debate.
Cancelling a contract does not really cut it. its "window dressing."

Either we  (OWASP) are engaging with RSAC or not, its that simple.

Delivering anything at RSAC shall be interpreted as a sign of support, this
is the root cause of the debate: *Are we to support RSAC this year given
the allegations?* (contract is circumstantial).




On 7 January 2014 00:42, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  My vote is: Yes. OWASP shall terminate the co-marketing agreement with
> RSA for RSA 2014.
>
> My reasons are:
>
>  1. community feedback and discussion (there seems to be a significant
> part of the community concerned about this) Note: I would have loved to see
> an OWASP community poll on this before making this decision to get a better
> feel for the wishes of our community, but acknowledge Michael's request
> that we need to decide this urgently.
>
>  2. we have an alternative (as outlined in Sarah's email, BSides) that
> can fulfil the goal equally.
>
>  3. I understand that there is a lot of uncertainty about RSA's level of
> involvement. And I don't feel in a position to make a final judgement about
> this. And as often with secrecy, we possibly never will be.
> But in this case we don't have to have final judgement. The co-marketing
> agreement is quite extensive and could be seen as active endorsement. To
> follow such an agreement we would need to have a very high level of
> confidence and trust in the other party. So already a reasonable shadow of
> doubt is sufficient grounds, to distance OWASP in this case from a very
> active co-marketing agreement with the company RSA, to avoid being
> interpreted as an active endorsement of a commercial entity currently under
> review. And we should abstain from actively endorsing RSA for the time
> being, until all facts of the case have been properly examined (note: not
> by us, as we are not an investigative body).
>
> In addition to that:
> I propose that OWASP should prepare and release a press release or public
> statement that OWASP thinks weakening or undermining crypto is a really bad
> idea. (I will be happy to assist with the preparation of the text.) This
> press release shall advocate our general OWASP principles and shall _not_
> mention RSA, the RSA conference or any other company by name. (personal
> note: btw. RSA should have no problem with such a press release, as they
> officially deny any such activities...)
>
> All the best, Tobias
>
>
> Tobias Gondrom
> Owasp Global Board
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/01/14 23:51, Michael Coates wrote:
>
>   "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."
>
>  Michael - Yes
> Tom -
> Tobias -
> Fabio -
> Josh - Yes
>  Jim - abstain
>  Eoin - abstain
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>  Same here, I can't vote, I believe as the class delivery and material
>> is mine and it would be a conflict.
>> I would be a "no" if I could.
>>
>>  Not sure why participation in an event requires a vote given other
>> events did not require such....
>>
>>  My view is based on
>>
>>  1. community feeling, (it has split the community very strongly).
>>
>>  2. logic (we have somewhere else), and
>>
>>  3. the goal (I don't care which roof the class is delivered under as
>> long as we teach many people and serve our mission).
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988 <%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>>
>>
>> On 6 Jan 2014, at 23:23, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>   I state conflict of interest here and cannot vote. But I certainly
>> respect the boards opinion and am leaning towards "no" if I could vote.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> @Manicode
>> (808) 652-3805 <%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:31 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
>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Eoin Keary
OWASP Member
https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140107/8975fc40/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list