[Owasp-board] Fwd: Reinstate my OWASP membership

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Jan 9 22:58:21 UTC 2014


Christian,

You told me via Skype that you were intentionally trying to harm and
disrupt OWASP. I am sure you will deny this and I may have misunderstood
the intent of your statement.

But for certain I think an inquiry is in order. The board needs to vote
your membership back in, per my understanding. I feel Josh is objective
and I will take his advice seriously. I know I am not at this point.

Aloha,
Jim

> Josh,
> 
> I did not ask for to attract the attention of a temporary committee or
> for you to "solicit other members of our leadership" and draw further
> negative attention towards me.
> 
> I haven't been a member since 9 January 2012 so how is my behaviour in
> scope now?  Neither was this a condition of termination.
> 
> For the record, when I have strictly adhered to the OWASP Board
> demands they have continued to show me disrespect and indicate that I
> am not welcome to rejoin the community i.e.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-pci-project/2011-November/000225.html
> 
> Of note is that Eoin wasn't suspended for his intolerable behaviour
> with his false accusation that I am "empty vessels trying to take
> advantage" of OWASP i.e.
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2010-July/003295.html
> which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be completely false and
> therefore smear and neither was Tom Brennan for refusing to release
> the "open" content of the OWASP PCI Project, which was simply
> promotion for WhiteHat and now Trustwave.
> 
> The termination action has concluded as of 9 January and the OWASP
> Board is to reinstate my membership today (which is now the 10 January
> and therefore a day late).
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> While I agree that it is a rather sensitive matter, it seems that much of
>> what we would be discussing took place over public mailing lists so most of
>> this is already out in the open.  And as long as Christian does not object
>> to it, I think we need to be as transparent throughout this process as
>> possible and not hide in the shadows of sensitivity.  Not following the "O"
>> in "OWASP" has bit us many times in the past and in a situation like this
>> where claims have been made around character assassination, I feel quite
>> strongly that all of these discussions should take place on record.
>>
>> Also, our intent here should not be to judge Christian for past
>> transgressions for which he has already served a considerable amount of
>> time.  That chapter needs to be laid to rest.  His membership was revoked on
>> 1/9/2012 and we need to evaluate his conduct since that time and his desire
>> and ability to positively participate in the OWASP community once again.
>>
>> Provided that the Board approves my proposal for a temporary committee on
>> this matter, I will solicit other members of our leadership to participate
>> as well.  These would be individuals agreed upon as "unbiased" by both
>> Christian and the Board.  Christian was a well-respected and contributing
>> member of our community before this occurred and we should at least be
>> ensuring that his concerns are being heard.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Josh and board colleagues,
>>>
>>> I am happy to support you on this. Though I would like for you to take the
>>> lead on this with me assisting, as I have only so many cycles and already
>>> quite a bit on my plate at this moment.
>>>
>>> One note: this is a sensitive matter and touches personal information of
>>> individuals. Out of respect for all people involved, we should not discuss
>>> personal details on a public mailing-list (aka the board mailing-list).
>>>
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/01/14 17:26, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparenlty there's something weird going on with the mailing list so I'm
>>> adding Fabio as well.  He was left off of Christian's initial e-mail.  Not
>>> sure if he's ever had any contact with this situation or if he'd want to
>>> participate, but he may be a good person on the proposed committee as well.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>> Date: Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Reinstate my OWASP membership
>>> To: Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au>
>>> Cc: Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org>, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>,
>>> OWASP Foundation Board List <owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>, Kate Hartmann
>>> <kate.hartmann at owasp.org>, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>, Tom
>>> Brennan <tomb at owasp.org>, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org>, Tobias Gondrom
>>> <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Board,
>>>
>>> I realize that this is a sensitive topic and one that has caused much
>>> controversy in the past.  Since much has changed since then, I would very
>>> much like to consider Christian's request to once again participate in the
>>> OWASP community.  That said, it seems that a number of Board members may
>>> have biases here that would likely affect their voting on this matter.  As
>>> such, I would like to propose a temporary committee lead by myself and
>>> Tobias based on our lack of biases on this matter with participation from
>>> Sarah, as Executive Director, to evaluate Christian's request.  The goal of
>>> this would not be to pass judgement on any past transgressions for which he
>>> has already served his time, but rather, to evaluate any actions after the
>>> vote of revocation and work with Christian to determine whether he feels
>>> that he is willing and able to move on from this and be productive within
>>> the OWASP Foundation.  I realize that this is a rather unusual request, but
>>> given the passions that have flared from both sides, this seems like the
>>> best path toward resolution.  Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Christian Heinrich
>>> <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sarah,
>>>>
>>>> It is 9 January 2014 which is two years to the day
>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/January_9,_2012 which I believe has
>>>> been proven beyond a reasonable doubt actioned without due process.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please reinstate my @owasp.org e-mail address and associated
>>>> Honorary Membership today?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Christian Heinrich
>>>> <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>>>> Sarah,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have no further comments or response on this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement above indicates that the termination action voted on by
>>>>> the OWASP Board was retrospectively applied due to their bias and
>>>>> without due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, with two years from
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/January_9,_2012 approaching in
>>>>> approximately one month can you please instruct the appropriate
>>>>> contact(s) within the OWASP Foundation to have my @owasp.org e-mail
>>>>> address and associated Honorary Membership fully restored by 9 January
>>>>> 2014 please?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian Heinrich
>>>>
>>>> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Owasp-board mailing list