[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Mon Mar 24 13:45:54 UTC 2014


Bueller?  Bueller?

Can I please get a second and a vote?  This was sent out 3 weeks ago.

~josh


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

>  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> 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 <%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> 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/20140324/ede8cd62/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list