[Owasp-board] Josh & Christian - Conference Call

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Wed Jan 15 15:07:25 UTC 2014


Christian,

In a previous e-mail you said:

"I do not want an inquiry or any additional action undertaken which the
OWASP Board considers helpful but ultimately destroys my quality of life.
 Both you and Josh have already inflicted the later."

While I know that rehashing negative old memories brings up new negative
emotions, I'm not sure that it is possible for us to come to a rational
conclusion on this without doing so.  I can promise you that Tobias and I
will look into each and every point you make here.  I can promise that we
will be fair and objective.  I can promise that we will take into
consideration your side of all of this in making any decisions.  And I can
push for the Board to hold on any vote due to potential biases until
Tobias, myself, and any unbiased others can come to a conclusion on this
matter.  I would like to do this in the open, as you suggest in this
e-mail, so that there is no questioning of the desires or motivations
behind this.  If your desire, as you stated, is to rewrite the Google
Hacking Inquiry, I don't think that I can promise this.

Taking the above actions will no doubt involve substantial time and effort
on our part.  It will also require you to aide us along this path and speak
with us, candidly, about your thoughts, feelings, and motivations.  I've
already tried to kick start this once and was met with your sentiment that
I was destroying your quality of life by doing so.  I apologized and
withdrew my request for the Board to hold on the vote to allow us to speak
with you on the matter.  Now you are coming back saying that:

"I accept the offer of a conference call with both yourself and Josh,
together or separate, and extend my availability for multiple conference
calls.  Therefore, please schedule these conference call as soon as
possible."

I want to help you Christian, but can't do so if you change your mind or
blame us for destroying your quality of life by engaging you.  Thus, I ask
you, are you sure, given all of the above, that you would like for myself,
Tobias, and other neutral parties, to involve ourselves in this affair in
order to address the questions which you specifically laid out in your last
communication?

1. The wiki page is dated from 14 February 2012 i.e.
https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Membership_Revocation&action=history
which more than a month after my membership was revoked and therefore
much like law how can this be applied retrospectively?

2. If the OWASP Board would like to continue with this action
then I would like to bring to your attention the "No Retaliation" section of
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Governance/Whistleblower_Policy and
therefore declare my termination invalid and unjust since having my
"membership [be] taken into consideration by the BoD under Article
4.0.3 of the OWASP Bylaws." as quoted from
http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2012-January/006624.html
is simply retaliation undertaken by Chris Schmidt?

3. Furthermore, the OWASP Board deliberately made no attempt to inform
me of this Agenda Item and neither was I informed until many days
later when I could no longer sign into Google Apps for @owasp.org?
This circumstances of this termination action have been requested
numerous times, most recently in October 2013 i.e.
http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2013-October/012398.html
and I have still not been provided with this artifact.

4. 4.0.3 was not a ratified bylaw and this agenda item at the OWASP
Board Meeting appears to be discussed at the eleven hour and last
minute based on the timestamp of 10 January 2012 at 11:55 i.e.
https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=January_9,_2012&oldid=122606
which is well past the Board Meeting date held 9 January 2012?  I
would welcome the OWASP Board provide the recording which disputes
this and if not why is the case?

5. From the 14 February 2012 and onwards the OWASP Board made no
attempt to inform me what
https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Membership_Revocation the
objective measure is for "pending approval by the board" the inception
of this wiki page (14 February).  Therefore can the OWASP Board
indicate how their vote is not subjective and bias?

If your answer is yes, you would like us to proceed, then I will once again
work with you and Tobias to schedule a call in order to discuss, and will
gladly open the call up to the community for review.  Since there were
concerns previously about your privacy in this matter, to the extent of
using your membership number and not your name in the public documentation,
I'd also like for you to acknowledge your waiver of any right to privacy,
being that you've requested this discussion be held in a public forum.  If
we can agree that:

1) You would like for me to proceed with holding a vote in order to discuss
with you AND
2) You waive any right to privacy on this matter so that it can be held in
a public forum

I will gladly work to proceed on your behalf.  The caveat is that if you
again state that I am somehow harming you by trying to help you, my offer
will be rescinded, and the Board will vote based on the information
currently available.  Are we agreed?

~josh


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:

> Tobias,
>
> I still have not received a reply to the e-mail dated Friday 10th
> January, 2014 at 11:16 AM.  Therefore can you please address these
> (some of which have been reworded as questions):
>
> 1. The wiki page is dated from 14 February 2012 i.e.
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Membership_Revocation&action=history
> which more than a month after my membership was revoked and therefore
> much like law how can this be applied retrospectively?
>
> 2. If the OWASP Board would like to continue with this action
> then I would like to bring to your attention the "No Retaliation" section
> of
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Governance/Whistleblower_Policy and
> therefore declare my termination invalid and unjust since having my
> "membership [be] taken into consideration by the BoD under Article
> 4.0.3 of the OWASP Bylaws." as quoted from
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2012-January/006624.html
> is simply retaliation undertaken by Chris Schmidt?
>
> 3. Furthermore, the OWASP Board deliberately made no attempt to inform
> me of this Agenda Item and neither was I informed until many days
> later when I could no longer sign into Google Apps for @owasp.org?
> This circumstances of this termination action have been requested
> numerous times, most recently in October 2013 i.e.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2013-October/012398.html
> and I have still not been provided with this artifact.
>
> 4. 4.0.3 was not a ratified bylaw and this agenda item at the OWASP
> Board Meeting appears to be discussed at the eleven hour and last
> minute based on the timestamp of 10 January 2012 at 11:55 i.e.
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=January_9,_2012&oldid=122606
> which is well past the Board Meeting date held 9 January 2012?  I
> would welcome the OWASP Board provide the recording which disputes
> this and if not why is the case?
>
> 5. From the 14 February 2012 and onwards the OWASP Board made no
> attempt to inform me what
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Membership_Revocation the
> objective measure is for "pending approval by the board" the inception
> of this wiki page (14 February).  Therefore can the OWASP Board
> indicate how their vote is not subjective and bias?
>
> As far as the conference call, *YES*, I want you to schedule a
> conference call and invite no just yourself but everyone else i.e. not
> limited to OWASP Board Members.  We feel that if I don't grant the
> OWASP Board this "generous opportunity" that the OWASP Board again
> will lie to its membership in stating that I was afforded every
> opportunity to rejoin OWASP.
>
> I'll restate that I accept the offer of a conference call with both
> yourself and Josh, together or separate, and extend my availability
> for multiple conference calls.  Therefore, please schedule these
> conference call as soon as possible.
>
> FYI - I recorded the OWASP Board Call of the "appeal" to my
> termination, in light of there being no "trial" at
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/843391/OWASP%20Board%20Call.7z I
> encourage everyone to listen to this because it is clearly evident
> that I won the appeal.
>
> I would recommend that the OWASP Board reconsider their demand for a
> vote in light of the overwhelming evidence that this process lacks any
> objectivity as the bias vote has already been decided again as
> confirmed within the
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/843391/OWASP%20Board%20Call.7z
> recording.
>
> If the OWASP Board continues to dispute this claim then I have several
> other e-mails which prove this to be the case i.e. that I won the
> appeal.
>
> Please reinstate my OWASP Membership and @owasp.org e-mail address
> TODAY as 6 days have lapsed since 9 January 2014.
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Christian,
> >
> > thank you for the explanation.
> > Just to clarify: At least from my perspective, the purpose of this call
> > was to talk about the reinstatement of the membership and to hear your
> > point of view on that. The call is not required, but could have been
> > helpful for Josh and me to better understand your views and your side of
> > the story before casting any votes. Without the call we will cast our
> > votes based on the written emails that we have.
> >
> > To prepare for the vote on re-instatement, I will forward this email to
> > the remaining board members for their information, so they know that you
> > request the reinstatement.
> >
> > Best regards, Tobias
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
>
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140115/9962cad6/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list