[Owasp-board] Please provide a status update to the membership

Kate Hartmann kate.hartmann at owasp.org
Thu Oct 16 02:04:45 UTC 2014


I believe I've changed it to visible via the link, please check.

I'm surprised to see this as it looks like a working document from the 2012
election.


On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> Board,
>
> Section 3.02 of the OWASP Foundation Bylaws references a page of election
> policies and procedures located at:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/document/d/1A16CEWCebTC_vadzSsaGFsuvBD94HhkbgHKBZr6shII/edit
>
> As Andrew rightfully pointed out in his e-mail, this document is
> restricted for viewing and I couldn't even access it's content.  Can we
> please get this document made publicly viewable ASAP.  If it is a part of
> our bylaws, then it should be a public document.  Thanks!
>
> ~josh
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
> Date: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Please provide a status update to the membership
> To: Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org>
> Cc: Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>, "josh.sokol at owasp.org" <
> josh.sokol at owasp.org>, "owasp-board at lists.owasp.org" <
> owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>, "owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org" <
> owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>
>
> Eoin
>
> 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:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/document/d/1A16CEWCebTC_vadzSsaGFsuvBD94HhkbgHKBZr6shII/edit
>
> thanks
> Andrew
>
> 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:
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > 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
> >> disenfranchised.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>


-- 


Kate Hartmann
kate.hartmann at owasp.org
+1 301-275-9403
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20141015/66a49b10/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list