[Owasp-board] Please provide a status update to the membership
eoin.keary at owasp.org
Wed Oct 15 21:50:00 UTC 2014
I don't think the board is responsible for managing the election. If this is in the bylaws please share?
I believe the staff are doing their best to fix matters.
I trust and have faith in them to address this without board meddling!!
Owasp Global Board
+353 87 977 2988
On 15 Oct 2014, at 22:09, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org> wrote:
> I am not asking the Board to get in there and deal with the technical
> stuff, I *am* asking the Board to
> * Determine what will happen if there is a significant number of
> disenfranchised members
> * Determine if any candidates are not in good standing and make a
> decision as to how to deal with that that complies with the by laws
> * Determine if there needs to be a delay or a re-do
> * Determine what will happen if there are challenges to the election
> or its process
> * Communicate with us
> None of those things are technical. None of those things stop the
> technical folks fixing the glitch. That should be happening in
> parallel, which it appears to be so. Let's let them do their job.
> At the same time, the Board needs to do their job, which is to manage
> the election process as per the by laws and providing advice or
> guidance around the election by laws when asked.
> I would ask that the election by laws be put into anonymous read only
> mode as it's in the PDF of the official OWASP by laws, but no one can
> see it right now without being granted permission:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Please Board, do not get involved in this process!!
>> Stay away and let our great staff deal with this.
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>> On 15 Oct 2014, at 15:26, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>> +1 for Josh.
>> I can fully support Josh's statements.
>> I know things may look calm on the outside, but let me assure you the whole
>> team (incl. the board) takes this as the highest priority and there is very
>> high activity on the inside by everyone pulling together to get this
>> analysed and fixed ASAP.
>> As you know the election is still open for another 9 days until Oct-24
>> (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/2014_Board_Elections), so please have a
>> little more patience and give our team a chance to fix it. And based on the
>> findings we will decide on what to do in addition - hopefully we know more
>> in a few hours.
>> Best wishes, Tobias
>> Tobias Gondrom
>> OWASP Global Board Member
>> On 15/10/14 15:10, Josh Sokol wrote:
>> I had at least half a dozen emails back and forth yesterday related to my
>> issue with not receiving the voting email and Kelly was well engaged with me
>> and SimplyVoting. They tracked my particular issue down to having
>> unsubscribed to a SimplyVoting email during the WASPY awards process. My
>> issue was just one of many reported and being worked on. Kate, who was in
>> training this week, was pulled from it in order to work on these issues.
>> This is item #1 on the ops team's plate and they are laser focused on making
>> sure this process is being handled professionally and without missing votes.
>> Your concerns are very valid and are all being investigated. If there is
>> cause to pause the election process, I assure you that it will be done. I
>> do want to say, however, that this is an operations issue and Board
>> involvement beyond supporting the ops team could constitute tampering with
>> the election process. We need to work diligently, yet judiciously, in order
>> to ensure the process is fair for everyone involved. There were several
>> emails on this topic yesterday along with a TON of ops team activity, and an
>> update is planned for today. Keep in mind that its early morning on day 2
>> here in the US where the ops team is based. I'm not saying that there isn't
>> a problem, but patience is definitely a virtue when you want to make sure
>> that things are handled properly. Please give the ops team a chance to
>> research what happened and communicate it out before assuming that the issue
>> is just being ignored. Thank you.
>> Josh Sokol
>> On Oct 15, 2014 7:16 AM, "Andrew van der Stock" <vanderaj at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Michael and the Board,
>>> I write to you formally to request a status update on the global OWASP
>>> Board of Directors election process, in particular, I implore the
>>> current Board to take affirmative action to investigate and manage a
>>> resolution to the technical hitches in membership and balloting, and
>>> if necessary delay the election, so that all eligible members can
>>> vote. There is no activity on the Board list to address this issue,
>>> and this, too, needs to be addressed.
>>> Members need to have trust of the integrity of the balloting
>>> (enfranchisement) and voting processes. There are rules posted
>>> regarding the process and deadlines, and for at least some (and
>>> possibly many) members, these deadlines have been missed by the OWASP
>>> Foundation. There is no current membership list. Members have expired
>>> and not been renewed or processed and have missed out on receiving
>>> their vote to the election. It is entirely possible that some of the
>>> candidates, through no fault of their own, are not in good standing.
>>> We just don't know.
>>> The only semi-official message in relation to my queries so far is
>>> "please don't be inflammatory". That is simply not good enough. I am
>>> not sledging the ops team - that is not my intent - but I am saying
>>> there is an critical issue and it is not being managed or communicated
>>> properly, and that requires Board oversight.
>>> In Australia, we recently had to send an entire state back to re-vote
>>> their senate because our electoral commission lost 1300 votes, which
>>> was more votes than the winning margin. I don't ever recall any open
>>> source project or Foundation ever having this type of problem before.
>>> I hope that it's a small issue that can be addressed in a timely and
>>> comprehensive fashion.
>>> Please as a matter of urgency, please work out and communicate with
>>> all the members, (and not just those on the leaders list):
>>> * What is the Board's position on challenges to the election,
>>> postponing or delaying the vote to get the membership and balloting
>>> right, or doing a re-run?
>>> * Were renewal notices sent out to expiring and expired members in a
>>> timely fashion to make the September 30 renewal eligibility deadline?
>>> * If not, will OWASP be e-mailing or making contact with all expired
>>> members to see if they wanted to renew and give them a vote in the
>>> election? If so, when will this occur? Will it occur by the time
>>> voting closes?
>>> * Are all current Board candidates in good standing? If not, will the
>>> Board reach out to the candidates in question, and offer them back
>>> dated honorary membership to comply with the bylaws? Or will they be
>>> ineligible to stand?
>>> * Are all membership renewals (paid, lifetime, and honorary) submitted
>>> prior to September 30 now processed?
>>> * If so, is there an up to date membership list that does not date
>>> back to April 8, 2014? Can this be added to the OWASP Board 2014
>>> elections page?
>>> * As the CRM process wasn't working for some time, what steps are the
>>> Board putting into place to ensure that it is fixed and monitored for
>>> the next election?
>>> These questions have to be answered. No answer is simply not an
>>> option. I don't mind if you take these on notice and reply in pieces,
>>> but please communicate frequently, openly and honestly with us.
>>> I know the vote is open until next week, but I feel that even if there
>>> are only a handful of members piping up on the Leaders mailing list
>>> today, the CRM process has been broken for at least two months, which
>>> covers about 15% of members. It may have been broken as far back as
>>> April 8 when the membership list was seemingly last generated, which
>>> covers around 45-50% of the members.
>>> Simply enrolling those who pipe up in one venue misses those who don't
>>> hang out on the Leaders list and disenfranchises those who might have
>>> wanted a say in OWASP's future. If this is actually a small issue, it
>>> should be easy to determine: compare July, August's and September's
>>> membership totals with that from the year before. If the totals are
>>> reduced, then there is a problem of a known magnitude. But without an
>>> accurate and up to date membership list, we cannot determine if there
>>> are disenfranchised members or how many have been potentially
>>> I gave the ops team nearly two month's notice that something wasn't
>>> right, and stayed in fairly constant communication during that time. I
>>> even gave a heads up about my fellow candidates, who I sincerely hope
>>> have their membership sorted so OWASP members have a geographically
>>> varied and interesting selection of candidates to choose from.
>>> I've been here since very nearly the beginning, I don't think I've
>>> ever seen such disarray in our internal processes, especially such key
>>> processes that directly elect the Board.
>>> I implore the Board to take this very seriously. Please communicate
>>> clearly and frequently with us on next steps. If the Board or the
>>> Foundation needs time - more time than there exists until the end of
>>> voting, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to
>>> ensure that we have an open, transparent membership and voting system
>>> with integrity for a vote to be open to all members, not just those
>>> unaffected by the technical glitches. I can't speak for the other
>>> candidates, but please ask them too. I'd rather this be done right.
>>> I am reachable on +61 451 057 580 if you want a chat, but I am UTC+11,
>>> which makes it tricky during US business hours.
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
More information about the Owasp-board