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

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Thu Oct 16 02:06:37 UTC 2014


I can see it now without a login.  Thank you Kate!

~josh

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org>
wrote:

> 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/20141015/4b5c6019/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list