[Owasp-board] Ning Renewal

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Fri May 9 03:58:03 UTC 2014


I'm fine with moving it to the OWASP credit card if we want to do that.
The bonus of having it be a virtual account number is that they cannot
automatically re-bill the card as it will have been expired and cancelled
at that point.  It's the only reason why I haven't been re-charged already.

To address Tom's point about having a "plan", here's the thread from the
renewal last year:

http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2013-May/011896.html

And here's the thread from 2012:

http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2012-April/011025.html

The community is definitely growing despite a lack of significant promotion
by me or OWASP staff.  Far slower than I would like to see, but as I said
in the thread from May 2013, I think the ideal scenario is to make a social
media platform the default form of engagement when users go to owasp.org.
Just about every major company that I can think of has a social media
platform for engaging users, but it's also a very visible part of their web
presence rather than something that's just advertised once a year on a
member-only mailing list.

~josh


On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK <
tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you should move it to owasp credit card and
> owasp.foundation at owasp.org as the admin account and then it's
> operationalized.. Even without a plan as I don't recall one for it either
> (if so where. Is that?) it was an experiment just like the portal and the
> meetups and I am sure a few other things all over the world.  Regardless
> good luck with it.
>
> This technically should never have been a board thingy rather a
> operational renewal anyhow on company card
>
>
> ---
> Tom Brennan | 973-298-1160 x799 | tomb at proactiverisk.com
>
>
> On May 8, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> OK, it sounds like the majority of the Board has voiced in favor of
> renewing so I'm going to go ahead and renew via my card and request
> reimbursement.  I'll issue a virtual account number so they can't
> auto-charge the renewal.  It's the only reason why they haven't already hit
> my card for it.  If we're asking chapters to put in for it, that seems like
> a message that should come from the staff, not a Board member, IMHO.
>
> ~josh
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Josh,
>>
>> actually we can just pay it as an org now, but still continue with Tom's
>> idea of asking some chapters to spend a few of their bucks on it. As he
>> said is nice as an awareness tool to make chapters aware and use what we
>> have.
>> (and if we don't get any donations from the chapters, we have paid it
>> anyway for this year and can get feedback on whether chapters find it
>> useful for next year's renewal.)
>>
>> Cheers, Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/05/14 21:55, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>
>>  Tom, I love the idea.  Unfortunately, they've already sent me a second
>> notice that they haven't been able to charge my card and are threatening to
>> turn it off.  I'd like to push forward with the renewal so as not to drop
>> the community and hopefully by the time this rolls around again we will
>> have a formal strategy on our social media presence.
>>
>>  ~josh
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Tom Brennan - proactiveRISK <
>> tomb at proactiverisk.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Win win here is pass the hat.
>>>
>>>  Call out to chapters to make them aware of it and it in ise for 2+
>>> years.  Then ask them to pledge to get to the $600 for renewal.
>>>
>>>  Owasp foundation match 1:1 hence let's raise awareness as another
>>> social platform, remind chapters about it.. If people want to support it
>>> win win.
>>>
>>>  If you can't raise $300 from chapters holding 200k in its bucket the
>>> community has spoken IMHO. I suspect you'll get it + it's a awareness
>>> message/reminder
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Tom Brennan | 973-298-1160 x799 <973-298-1160%20x799> |
>>> tomb at proactiverisk.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 8, 2014, at 4:26 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 <973-298-1160%20x799> |
>>>>> 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 <%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140508/989ac0cf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list