[Owasp-board] Update to Bylaws

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Mon Mar 31 19:35:57 UTC 2014


I've got YES votes from:

Josh
Tom
Jim
Fabio
Tobias
Eoin

Michael?  Are you out there?

~josh


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:

> Yes.
>
>
> 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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140331/da3a676b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list