[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Mar 27 11:48:23 UTC 2014


I don't believe my proposal has changed.

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.
On Mar 27, 2014 5:33 AM, "Tobias" <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Hi Josh and Jim,
> great, we have a second.
> @Josh: would you mind to spell out the proposal again just in case any of
> the specific wording has changed during the previous discussion?
> So that the board can focus the discussion and we could come to a vote.
> Thanks, Tobias
>
>
>
> On 24/03/14 21:50, Jim Manico wrote:
>
> 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> 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 <%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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/a60e4713/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list