[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Sat Mar 22 03:24:33 UTC 2014


To be clear, what you're talking about is a process and I support that.
What I've proposed (per what you all asked me to put together at the Board
meeting) is a policy via thr Bylaws that specifies the path of revocation
should that process fail to allow cooler heads to prevail.  They are not
mutually exclusive and are both important along the path toward resolution
one way or another.
On Mar 21, 2014 7:56 PM, "Jim Manico" <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

>  +1
>
> I like this process.
>
> 1) When conflict arises, first the chapter leads bring in the community
> manager to see if the dispute can be resolved.
> 2) If necessary, chapters can start a process to remove someone from the
> chapter. Community manager over-sees this to make sure it's done with
> integrity.
> 3) If the individual thinks the process is being done unfairly or they
> were removed unfairly, they can petition the board to get involved.
>
> This seems reasonable to be. I want to make sure that competitive
> interests or corporate interests are not taking over a chapter and decide
> to remove someone to remove competition.
> - Jim
>
> On 3/22/14, 8:52 AM, GK Southwick wrote:
>
> Completely fair and I believe that that was what Tom was suggesting, only
> that it shouldn't go straight to the BoD, unless there is no other
> recourse. We now have a Community Manager to handle mitigation, without
> having to involve the board in every little dispute.
>
>  Don't get me wrong, I know that completely ostracizing someone from the
> community is not a  "little" dispute, by any means. But I also believe that
> there's a time and place for escalation and we can start every appeal at a
> lower level than the BoD.
>
>  -= GK
>
>  Community Manager
>  OWASP Foundation
>
>  gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
> +01.415.742.2342
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>  Since this is about someone getting pushed out of the community in a
>> big way, something against our DNA, I want to make sure they have the
>> ability to appeal to the board after the community review process is
>> complete. Fair?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> @Manicode
>> (808) 652-3805
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:58 AM, GK Southwick <genevieve.southwick at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   Absolutely. We don't need to escalate it to BoD review, unless we
>> can't agree to disagree at the community level first.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  -= GK
>>
>>  Community Manager
>>  OWASP Foundation
>>
>>  gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
>> +01.415.742.2342
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> " notifying the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days of
>>> the original notification"
>>>
>>>  notifying the OWASP Community Manager in writing within 14 days of the
>>> original notification
>>>
>>> What that does is allow the staff to look at the issue.  If
>>> satisfaction resolution to either party is not made then it can be go
>>> on the agenda for a board meeting discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Semper Fi,
>>>
>>> Tom Brennan | OWASP Foundation
>>> Vice Chairman
>>> Main: +1 973 202 0122 <%2B1%20973%20202%200122>
>>> Skype: proactiverisk
>>> Web: http://www.owasp.org
>>>
>>> NYC CyberSocial 26 March
>>> http://www.meetup.com/OWASP-NYC/events/169653782/
>>>
>>> NJ CyberSocial 27 March
>>> http://www.meetup.com/OWASP-New-Jersey/events/169975572/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Does anyone else have any comments on this?  Tobias asked if "in
>>> writing"
>>> > includes e-mail, but otherwise that's the only comment I received.
>>>  Can I
>>> > have a second please so that we can proceed with a vote?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Proposal: Add a new section to the OWASP Bylaws.
>>> >
>>> > SECTION 4.07  Participation. Participation in OWASP activities
>>> (conferences,
>>> > meetings, mailings lists, projects, etc) does not require membership,
>>> but is
>>> > subject to adherence to the OWASP Code of Ethics, and OWASP leaders may
>>> > revoke the privilege of participation to those who choose not to abide
>>> by
>>> > that code.  Notification of such a revocation must be made to the
>>> individual
>>> > in writing, with the OWASP Board of Directors CC'd for inclusion in the
>>> > Foundation records.  If an individual believes that this revocation is
>>> > unjustified, then they have the option to appeal the decision by
>>> notifying
>>> > the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days of the original
>>> > notification.
>>> >
>>> > ~josh
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Josh,
>>> >> sounds good.
>>> >> One question to the lawyers among us: does "in writing" include per
>>> email?
>>> >> Thanks, Tobias
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 03/03/14 16:12, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> As requested, I have re-worded the proposed addition to the Bylaws to
>>> >> include information about notification and an appeals process.  Also,
>>> since
>>> >> the most logical place to put this is in the membership section of the
>>> >> bylaws, I modified to say that participation does not require
>>> membership.
>>> >> Please discuss.
>>> >>
>>> >> Proposal: Add a new section to the OWASP Bylaws.
>>> >>
>>> >> SECTION 4.07  Participation. Participation in OWASP activities
>>> >> (conferences, meetings, mailings lists, projects, etc) does not
>>> require
>>> >> membership, but is subject to adherence to the OWASP Code of Ethics,
>>> and
>>> >> OWASP leaders may revoke the privilege of participation to those who
>>> choose
>>> >> not to abide by that code.  Notification of such a revocation must be
>>> made
>>> >> to the individual in writing, with the OWASP Board of Directors CC'd
>>> for
>>> >> inclusion in the Foundation records.  If an individual believes that
>>> this
>>> >> revocation is unjustified, then they have the option to appeal the
>>> decision
>>> >> by notifying the OWASP Board of Directors in writing within 14 days
>>> of the
>>> >> original notification.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >>
>>> >> ~josh
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> >> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> >> https://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
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140321/de06f9bc/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list