[Owasp-board] Committees 2.0 [Revised]

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sun Jun 29 21:24:20 UTC 2014

+1 I think this is a good move.

The more active committee members we have making core decisions together
(especially from different companies) the more we truly support vendor
neutrality and high integrity decision making.

Jim Manico
(808) 652-3805

On Jun 30, 2014, at 3:51 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

Based on a comment from Jim, I thought it would make sense to add
additional verbiage regarding the initial committee members (due to the 3
month participation minimum) as well as the number of committee members
necessary to hold a committee.  To this end, once a committee has been
proposed and accepted, I defined that the Board will put out a formal call
for participation.  As long as we have at least five qualified applicants,
the committee is validated.  Jim's original suggestion was three, but my
gut is that three people is not representative enough of the needs of the
community at large nor is it an appropriate decision making body.  I also
defined that if, for whatever reason, committee membership drops below five
members, the committee is responsible for putting out a call for
participation.  If they can't raise the number to at least five, then the
committee is removed.  Thoughts?


On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Agreed. A hangout with board and staff would be a good idea here. I think
> there is a gap between what the board is suggesting vs what staff is
> suggesting and I think we need to mind and close that gap if possible.
> Aloha,
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
> On Jun 29, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Tom Brennan - OWASP <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
> Facilitation of a verbal discussion would be most valuable using your new
> google hangout skills open to staff and community
> Tom Brennan
> 973-202-0122
> On Jun 28, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> Josh,
> I read it carefully and tried to add meaningful comments. I am a huge fan
> of this direction. Well done.
> I am most concerned with staff thoughts on this and am eager for their
> detailed feedback.
> Aloha,
> Jim
> On 6/28/14, 6:40 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>   All,
>  Based on the feedback in yesterday's Board meeting, I have updated the
> Committees 2.0 document.  This includes redefining the roles of staff,
> adding a new section for Board involvement, and various other changes.  I
> tried to comment on the major revisions, but it's probably best to just
> re-read through the document and provide any additional feedback via the
> comment functionality.
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/124Cr0F3lUwKY_XPZ1sE3VAYovaquWfNGwb2e3heNlyk/edit?usp=sharing
>  I feel like we're getting close here.  Once we have a general consensus
> that this accurately reflects what we desire for volunteer empowerment, I
> will push it out to the Leaders list for additional commentary before
> requesting a vote.  I'd like to request that all feedback and discussions
> take place by noon CST on Wednesday, July 2nd (soft deadline, we can add
> more time if necessary) so that I can make any changes and push out to the
> Leaders on Wednesday afternoon.  Thank you all for your contributions thus
> far!
>  ~josh
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140630/e18d46fd/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list