[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Mar 27 21:47:44 UTC 2014


I believe that's a "YES" vote from:

Josh
Tom
Jim
Fabio

Please let me know if I misinterpreted your "Aye" response Tom or your "I
support the changes suggested to the bylaws" Fabio as a vote in favor.
Michael, Tobias, and Eoin?  Do you have a vote in favor or against?

~josh


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK <
tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:

> Aye.
>
> Tom Brennan
> 9732020122
>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/028590b5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list