[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Fri Mar 28 16:14:00 UTC 2014


I vote with "Yes".

Best regards, Tobias


On 28/03/14 05:49, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Silence does not imply consent.  Anyone not consenting should suggest
> an alternative.
>
> Tom Brennan
> 9732020122
>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:tomb at proactiverisk.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Aye.
>>
>>     Tom Brennan
>>     9732020122 <tel:9732020122>
>>
>>     On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>>     <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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 <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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         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/20140329/068254d1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list