[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Mar 22 03:27:36 UTC 2014


Sounds good Josh. Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers,
Jim

On 3/22/14, 12:24 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gk at owasp.org>
>>     +01.415.742.2342
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
>>     <mailto: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 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>
>>         On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:58 AM, GK Southwick
>>         <genevieve.southwick at owasp.org
>>         <mailto: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 <mailto:gk at owasp.org>
>>>         +01.415.742.2342
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org
>>>         <mailto: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 <tel:%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 <mailto: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
>>>             <mailto: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
>>>             <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>             >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>             >>
>>>             >>
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > _______________________________________________
>>>             > Owasp-board mailing list
>>>             > Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>             <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>             > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>             >
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             Owasp-board mailing list
>>>             Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>             <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>             https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Owasp-board mailing list
>>>         Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>         https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Owasp-board mailing list
>     Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto: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/20140322/40787560/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list