[Owasp-board] (Final Results) Vote Request - OWASP Participation at RSA

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Tue Jan 7 22:53:06 UTC 2014


*Here are the updated votes.*
3 Yes
2 No
2 Abstain

*Result: *Vote Pass - 3 / 5 votes in favor

*Vote Proposal:*

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.

*Vote Results:*

Michael - Yes
Tom - No
Tobias - Yes
Fabio - No
Josh - Yes
Jim - abstain
Eoin - abstain


*Next Steps:*
Sarah will work with RSA to explore the details of canceling the
co-marketing agreement and whether the OWASP training can still be provided.



--
Michael Coates
@_mwc



On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:

> Tobias & Board,
>
> Here are the updated votes.
> We have 3 YES votes, 1 NO vote, 2 abstain and Fabio's vote is unclear.
>
> This vote has quorum 6 of 7 board members vote recorded (Fabio's vote
> pending) and a majority of the votes (3 of 5) voted in favor of the
> measure. Unless there are any other comments we should move forward with
> this finalized vote. Tobias, as Secretary any further comments on this
> vote? Can you record the results?
>
>
> *Vote Proposal:*
>
> 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.
>
> *Vote Results:*
>
> Michael - Yes
> Tom - No
> Tobias - Yes
> Fabio - clarification needed*
>
> Josh - Yes
> Jim - abstain
> Eoin - abstain
>
>
> From Fabio's email:
> "But for the time being, my decision stands to go ahead as planned." I'd
> interpret this as a NO to the proposal, but no vote has been recorded until
> Fabio clarifies.
>
>
> --
> Michael Coates
> @_mwc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:
>
>> Board,
>>
>> Here is the current status of the vote:
>>
>> Michael - Yes
>> Tom - No vote cast or opinion stated
>> Tobias - Yes
>> Fabio - clarification needed
>> Josh - Yes
>> Jim - abstain
>> Eoin - abstain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Coates
>> @_mwc
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Fabio,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts and reading through the thread of discussion.
>>>
>>> Can you clarify your position in regards to the proposed vote? In
>>> addition to whether or not OWASP provides the free training there is also
>>> the element of co-marketing with RSA. Sarah provided all the details here (
>>> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2014-January/012876.html)
>>>
>>> The proposed vote is to cancel the co-marketing contract and, if
>>> possible, still provide the free training. This specifically means OWASP
>>> would be at RSA; however, we would not be engaging in any promotion of the
>>> event per the contract outlined in Sarah's email.
>>>
>>> Here is the exact wording proposed:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey guys
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the silence in the last couple of days. It took me a
>>>> while to read the whole thread and reviewing external sources as well while
>>>> on the road.
>>>>
>>>> As Eoin's just stated below, we need to take an 'in or out' decision.
>>>>
>>>> Cancelling the contract but maybe delivering training is not an option.
>>>>
>>>> To his question "*Are we to support RSAC this year given the
>>>> allegations?"*
>>>>
>>>> I would personally vote YES. My reasoning is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - There is no concrete evidence about the allegations of a payout.
>>>> - RSA is firmly refuting any accusations.
>>>> - i still believe in the premise: "Innocent until proven guilty"
>>>>
>>>> I'm also monitoring the poll created by Simon to get a feel of the
>>>> Community and there is no clear distinction between one opinion or the
>>>> other. If the Community strongly believes we should pull out, and as a
>>>> matter of principles, I might be inclined to change my decision and vote NO
>>>> instead. But for the time being, my decision stands to go ahead as planned.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, if we (OWASP) are dropping our support and making an
>>>> official statement about 'weaking crypto in products is bad' I would highly
>>>> recommend for this document to be reviewed by a solicitor or qualified
>>>> professional before making it public. I don't feel is OWASP position to
>>>> accuse companies of any wrongdoings based on news articles or blog posts.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Fabio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El Tuesday, January 7, 2014, Eoin escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>>> OWASP Member
>>>>> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20140107/3aed8351/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list