[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Fri Mar 28 20:22:54 UTC 2014


Michael and Eoin?  Your votes please?

~josh


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Josh Sokol <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> 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/20140328/2cd65d64/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list