[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Eoin Keary eoin.keary at owasp.org
Fri Mar 28 23:02:27 UTC 2014


Yep

Eoin Keary
Owasp Global Board
+353 87 977 2988


On 28 Mar 2014, at 20:22, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140328/9404e53a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list