[Owasp-board] Josh & Christian - Conference Call

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Jan 23 20:24:18 UTC 2014


I will keep your points in mind, but don't see a need to reply to your
comments at this point. I also think the process has been sufficiently
clarified. Please note also, that I am unfortunately also busy with
other inquiries (including reading your emails) and can only apply an
appropriate amount of my time on this.

At this point, the main objective is to understand your point of view on
your wish for reinstatement and study through all the evidence of this
case including all the emails you sent, in order to come to a fair
conclusion and judgement. Of course, I will take all your comments and
statements into consideration when casting my vote. But I see no need to
engage in a discussion with you about the decided process or statements
from the board in 2012.

Best regards, Tobias

On 15/01/14 11:23, Christian Heinrich 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 which more than a month after my membership was revoked and therefore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

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list