[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon Mar 24 13:50:05 UTC 2014


Ok I second your motion and your notion, Josh.  Sorry, been listening to 
Smokey Robinson. It could have been worse, I could have said something 
like "If you feel like loving me, if you have the notion, I'll second 
that emotion" but decided against it.

Aloha from Mumbai.
Jim



On 3/24/14, 7:15 PM, Josh Sokol wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <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/20140324/1476890c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list