[Owasp-board] Ning Renewal

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu May 8 21:07:10 UTC 2014


GK,

It doesn't matter if the community is 300 or 300,000.  Dropping them
without a plan to support them is never a good idea.  And yes, OWASP
Austin, the chapter that donated $10,000 to the OWASP Foundation a month or
so ago is the primary user of the service.  I suggest that the Foundation
take it out of that winfall and move on until next renewal.  Support those
who support us.  I'm obviously very close to the situation, but feel that
I'd be saying the same thing if it were any other chapter instead.

As for the member portal community, it shouldn't have gone up in the first
place.  Putting any experiment in place, especially one that detracts from
other things already in motion, is doomed to failure (or at least screws
over the other things in motion).  And putting a gate (ie. a
login/password) on what describes itself as an open community is a
non-starter for me.  Instead of focusing on resurrecting the member portal
community, our time is better spent trying to put together a full social
media plan (ie. look at what our community needs and find a platform that
meets those needs).  Hopefully that's what you meant?  If so, I fully
support you putting together a formal plan to engage the community via
social media.

~josh


On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:58 PM, GK Southwick
<genevieve.southwick at owasp.org>wrote:

> Josh,
>
> Right, but with over 42K in our community, saying that 300 people is
> organization wide, may not be a lie, but it's a stretch. And of those 300
> that are signed-up, didn't we determine that most of the groups are dead
> and haven't been used in awhile - with the exception of Austin?
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> While I agree that G+ and the Hangouts are great - It's actually the way I
> prefer to video chat - getting everyone on to Google is a stretch. Not
> everyone trusts google - especially the more paranoid types - and I can't
> blame them one bit.
>
> I am gathering intel and building my argument as to why we should be using
> the Member Portal Community feature that was so prematurely shot-down, but
> more on that in a few weeks.
>
> I'm in agreement with Tom on this. If it's being used by more than Austin,
> then all chapters that use the platform should chip-in. I'm good with the
> Foundation matching funds 1:1. I am not OK with the idea of the Foundation
> paying $600 a year to keep a platform alive that's being used by less than
> .8% of the community.
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> It actually very much is an organization-wide platform, or at least was
>> designed to be when we moved from the free account that OWASP Austin was
>> using to the paid account that the OWASP Foundation is using.  Out of the
>> 300+ people signed up to use it, I'd guess that somewhere around 10% of
>> that is from OWASP Austin.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:23 PM, GK Southwick <
>> genevieve.southwick at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to agree with Tom on this. I feel that it should come out of
>>> the budget of the chapters that are using it. It's not an
>>> organizational-wide platform. It should not come out of the Foundation
>>> budget.
>>>
>>> -= GK
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK <
>>> tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A call to chapters to pay for it is appropriate especially those using
>>>> it IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> $600 is petty cash so I'm good with either frankly
>>>>
>>>> As example the chapters using meet-up pay for it themselves from
>>>> chapter bucket and there are 4400 people using that platform
>>>> http://owasp.meetup.com
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Tom Brennan | 973-298-1160 x799 | tomb at proactiverisk.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> @Manicode
>>>> (808) 652-3805
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Board,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Ning group is up for renewal (technically past due at this point).
>>>>  Considering that we still have a decent number of people on the platform,
>>>> and it is being actively used, I think that we should renew it for another
>>>> year with the caveat that we may end up replacing it based on a future
>>>> evaluation of social media technologies.  It's $600 for the renewal.  We
>>>> don't have a lot of time to debate this so I'd like to ask for your
>>>> permission to renew for another year.  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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
>>>> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
>>>> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
>>>> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
>>>> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. No employee
>>>> or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of
>>>> proactiveRISK with another party by email.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Community Manager
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>
>>> Phone: +01.415.742.2342
>>> Email: gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
>>> Twitter: @gksouthwick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> Phone: +01.415.742.2342
> Email: gksouthwick at owasp.org <gk at owasp.org>
> Twitter: @gksouthwick
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140508/b895c373/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list