[Owasp-board] Fwd: Reinstate my OWASP membership

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Fri Jan 10 06:18:09 UTC 2014


Board,

Based on Christian's statement below, I withdraw my request to form a
special committee on this matter.  I feel that I would need to abstain from
any vote to reinstate Christian's membership based on a lack of background
data on thid matter, but no longer see any reason to delay such a vote.

~josh
On Jan 9, 2014 4:54 PM, "Christian Heinrich" <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au>
wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
>
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140110/632fe980/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list