[Owasp-board] Funding - board travel budget

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Tue Jan 7 19:49:05 UTC 2014


#1 (Training at conferences) has nothing to do with Board members and
should not be considered a Board travel expense.  In fact, I'd highly
recommend putting these speaking and training opportunities out into the
OWASP Global Initiatives, allowing others from the community to submit
proposals and/or interest, and then allowing the OWASP staff to select
qualified candidates in the region of the conference.  This would be in the
best interests of neutrality, scalability, and cost reduction.  Did we ever
think about having someone else do the training at RSA or did Jim and Eoin
just step up to the opportunity when it was presented?  To the community
this may appear as Board members getting preferential treatment and we
should avoid that perception at all costs.  A public CFP process would
prevent that.  All conference speaking slots should follow this rule unless
the specific topic being presented is a "State of OWASP" or similar.

#2 (conference organizer work) also has nothing to do with Board members
and should not be considered a Board travel expense.  Since it is a
function directly tied to the conference, then any travel associated with
the role should be tied to the conference budget, regardless of whether the
person is a Board member or not.

#3 (in-person Board meetings) is really the only travel that should be
considered acceptable for Board members to have reimbursed by the
foundation since it has direct benefits to the organization itself and is
fundamental to the role of being a Board member.

Just thinking out loud here.

~josh


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> +100
>
> I'm with you Tobias. I think a few *good* uses for board-level travel
> funds are (1) paying for trainers who are delivering free training (self
> serving, I admit, but I'd like others to do it as well), (2) conference
> organizers like the work Tom did for AppSec USA, (3) paying for board
> travel for our annual on-site meeting and similar value-add travel. I'd
> like to avoid paying a lot to send a board member to give a brief intro
> talk.
>
> The counter point to this argument is also valid. Sending a board member
> to a conference, even if just for a brief intro talk, adds a lot of
> board-level socializing that is incredibly valuable but often hard to
> quantify. For example, I used to complain in the past when we sent Tom to a
> conference when he was only giving one intro 30 minute talk. But after the
> talk, Tom would socialize with different OWASP teams and then follow up.
> This is not always tangible, but it's a huge value for new chapters and
> regions to socialize and ask questions of the board.
>
> Anyhow, here are both sides of the story, both of which I feel are valid.
>
> Aloha,
> Jim
>
>
>
> > Hi Sarah, Eoin and board,
> >
> > small question: are we indeed paying for two board members to fly to
> Japan?
> > I thought it was only me because I am in the neighbourhood (HK-Japan is
> > a very cheap flight).
> > In general, I think at least one board member per AppSec makes sense, to
> > give the community direct access and also to show global support.
> >
> > Proposal:
> > It would be a good thing to take a look at the list of board travel
> > expenses of last year and event travel plans for board members for the
> > coming year. As a team we should coordinate our board related
> > activities. It also adds to transparency and prioritisation.
> >
> > Thanks, Tobias
> >
> >
> > Ps.: on a more provocative side note: we could think about whether we
> > even want to fund board travel to AppSecs at all. Would this really keep
> > anyone of us from going to an AppSec? I think this is more a time than a
> > money issue. Before joining the board we funded our own travel to
> > AppSecs and there are many great reasons to come to AppSecs, so I would
> > assume all or most of us will be there anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/12/13 09:56, Eoin Keary wrote:
> >> Sarah/Board,
> >>
> >> I still question the decisions of the foundation re allocation of
> funds...May I ask which is a better usage of our funds?
> >>
> >> Sending 2 board members to Japan to  represent the board, shake hands,
> kids baby's etc etc
> >> Or
> >> Funding 2 trainers travel expenses to deliver training to a couple of
> hundred devs for free at RSA using their donated training course?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Eoin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eoin Keary
> >> Owasp Global Board
> >> +353 87 977 2988
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140107/9db711cb/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list