[Owasp-board] Funding - board travel budget

Sarah Baso sarah.baso at owasp.org
Tue Jan 7 19:54:30 UTC 2014


I agree with Josh 100% and actually, the budget based on the mentality that
#3 is the only thing coming out of board travel budget.

Eoin's flight for RSA will come out of the outreach bucket.

I think in the future we should  follow the approach offered by Josh in #1.

Sarah


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> #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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>


-- 
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/20140107/be02fd48/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list