[Owasp-board] [Governance] Bylaw Update Discussion - Board Member Confidence
Tobias
tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Sun Aug 30 21:56:02 UTC 2015
I agree.
We should come to a motion and get a vote going on that.
I have 3 comments:
1. The future wording should avoid that after a trigger has been
reached, that we vote again (and again) even though the respective board
member is attending. The wording might require clarification on that issue.
2. I would prefer to avoid a situation where the calculation starts on
the first meeting. E.g. a board member missing the first meeting and
immediately triggering a vote of confidence. We could start the trigger
at the 4th meeting, that gives reasonable excuse if one of the first 4
meetings is missed.
And on a personal level: I like to remind us again, that so far I have
given some priority to timing for US board members as most of our board
members are there. So I like to ask for some understanding for people
outside. Before you judge too quickly, please take a moment and think
about how the current board times translate into European, China,
Australia or Hawaii times...
In fact I am extremely grateful for Andrew's, Jim's and also Fabio's
patience and understanding for the scheduling. It is hard to schedule
for a globally distributed board. Still I believe it is in fact a very
good thing for OWASP that we are having a global diversity on our board.
Thank you and best regards,
Tobias
(chair)
On 26/08/15 17:43, Michael Coates wrote:
> Like all issues we've had some discussion on the list. Next step
> would be a motion, second and a vote. Then the cards fall where they may.
>
> It sounds like most opinions are on the table so if someone wants to
> make a motion, then go for it.
>
> My view echoes Matt, we have to show up. 75% is good and we can work
> on the schedule to share the pain if that is the issue. Note that we
> set the schedule at the beginning of the year, so we should be more
> diligent in the future if people's voices on the schedule weren't heard.
>
>
> I still agree that in person is nice, but not a hard requirement.
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> Ahhh, so this is something personal against me because I won't agree
>> that it makes sense to lower the bar for attendance? Let's call a
>> spade a spade, Fabio.
>>
>> These are two completely separate issues. The Board attendance is
>> one that ensures that you are at the meetings and actively engaged in
>> the discussion and voting. This is your FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS
>> A BOARD MEMBER. Meeting in-person has no effect on whether you are
>> performing your Board duties. It's a nice thing. And, engaging with
>> the community has NOTHING to do with attending a Board meeting
>> in-person. It has to do with being present while other members of
>> our community are present. Our community extends well beyond those
>> present at AppSecUSA or AppSecEU. That is an EXTREMELY narrow-minded
>> viewpoint. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that there are
>> more members of our community that were at BlackHat than at either
>> AppSec conference. Nothing against AppSec, it's a great conference, I
>> even ran one, but they're limited in appeal and in those who attend.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org
>> <mailto:fcerullo at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> My take on the 75% percent is that in the same fashion that US
>> Board members could attend meetings comfortably during the day it
>> is unfair to request other non-US Board members to attend
>> meetings in the middle of the night. And then ask for a vote of
>> CONFIDENCE if you go below that bar. Josh, in the same fashion
>> that you object cannot attend meetings in person due to family
>> reasons I think is unfair for you to request other Board members
>> to make family sacrifices or deprive them from sleep.
>>
>> Here is the 2015 schedule for past/upcoming Board meetings…
>> almost all of them are early afternoon PST (Pacific time):
>>
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings#tab=Agenda_for_2015_Meetings
>>
>> So my recommendation there is either to make the requirement more
>> logical for everyone (attendance 50% or lower) or change the
>> wording so the vote of CONFIDENCE is not mandatory.
>>
>> Regarding the attendance in person… my suggestion is to require
>> OWASP Board members to attend in-person at least ONE meeting a
>> year and engage with the Global OWASP community.
>>
>> I don’t believe there is a requirement in the Bylaws for OWASP
>> Board members to attend BlackHat, BSides or other non-OWASP events.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Fabio Cerullo
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> https://www.owasp.org
>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015 <https://2015.appsecusa.org> in
>> San Francisco!
>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 13:53, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
>>> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> +1 on both accounts. I am personally very grateful for your many
>>> and regular contributions on the board, even when we disagree on
>>> occasion. I think you handle conflict extremely well and I
>>> appreciate your strong sense of ethics.
>>>
>>> Keep on rockin' in the free world.
>>>
>>> Aloha,
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On 8/26/15 7:13 AM, Josh Sokol wrote:
>>>> Fabio,
>>>>
>>>> I did not express any concern about the 75% requirement. I
>>>> think it is a very reasonable expectation to have a Board
>>>> member not miss more than 3 meetings a year. Even that number
>>>> seems high to me. I don't see any issue if Michael or Andrew
>>>> were to trigger a vote of confidence if they were to miss
>>>> another meeting. In all likelihodd, if that were to happen, we
>>>> would just handle it exactly as we handled your situation. We
>>>> recognize contributions outside of the meetings and move on.
>>>> That said, if a Board member got elected, and simply wasn't
>>>> attending meetings, or wasn't putting in any effort, would you
>>>> really want to wait longer than 3 months to have the OPTION to
>>>> remove them? This process is working exactly as it was
>>>> designed to. Why would we want to change it all of a sudden
>>>> now that someone was falling below the bar?
>>>>
>>>> With respect to changing the in-person Board meeting
>>>> requirements, I strongly object. I was the one who petitioned
>>>> the Board to have this requirement changed from MUST to SHOULD
>>>> in the first place. While my family and work obligations make
>>>> travel quite difficult for me, I don't think it has sacrificed
>>>> my participation in the Board at all. And in terms of
>>>> interaction with the community, I was out at both BSides Las
>>>> Vegas and BlackHat where OWASP had a presence at both. Were
>>>> you? I participate in the MONTHLY OWASP Austin chapter
>>>> meetings, MONTHLY happy hours, and LASCON. I attend many other
>>>> local and regional security events such as BSides Austin and
>>>> HouSecCon. So, there are MANY other ways for a Board member to
>>>> meet with the community, talk about their needs, and help them
>>>> progress their projects without an in-person Board meeting.
>>>> With OWASP having a highly-distributed global Board, and in
>>>> this age of technology, the idea that we all have to be in the
>>>> same place to get something done is ludicrous. Is it more
>>>> ideal? Absolutely. Should it be a requirement? Absolutely not.
>>>>
>>>> ~josh
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Fabio Cerullo
>>>> <fcerullo at owasp.org <mailto:fcerullo at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for updating the wording in the clause below. I have
>>>> some comments regarding the 75% attendance requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Besides Josh, several board members already expressed a
>>>> concern about this requirement and are willing to
>>>> lower/eliminate it.
>>>>
>>>> Just to give you an example: Michael and Andrew will
>>>> trigger a vote of CONFIDENCE if they miss another meeting
>>>> during the calendar year.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wpaOCBP-qrnde0sLiglDMJOUCtse6oB-zf3ONCkWgZk/edit?pli=1#gid=6
>>>>
>>>> I think that is counterproductive and will send us in a
>>>> spiral of votes of CONFIDENCE at every Board meeting. I
>>>> would suggest to lower that requirement or NOT making the
>>>> vote of CONFIDENCE a requirement for meetings attendance.
>>>> The vote of CONFIDENCE should be a mechanism to expel a
>>>> Board member if they don’t fulfil their duties, misbehave
>>>> with other members/staff of the community, or they
>>>> significantly do not show up at the Board meetings (e.g.
>>>> attendance less than 50%).
>>>>
>>>> Also, I believe the requirement to meet in person is quite
>>>> vague as per current statement below. I attended all in
>>>> person meetings at AppSec USA & AppSec EU and think they
>>>> are very valuable. You have a chance to meet with the
>>>> community, talk about their needs, help them progress their
>>>> projects, and meet face-to-face with your fellow Board
>>>> members. So if we are going to change the Bylaws, I think
>>>> we need to put a requirement for Board members to meet in
>>>> person at least ONCE a year. I will appreciate your
>>>> feedback and from the rest of the Governance list regarding
>>>> this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Attendance in person or virtually by board members is
>>>>> required at no less than 75% of the total meetings each
>>>>> year and *shall be highly encouraged to meet in person at
>>>>> least once annually* at a date to be announced and agreed
>>>>> upon.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Fabio Cerullo
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> https://www.owasp.org <https://www.owasp.org/>
>>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015 <https://2015.appsecusa.org/> in
>>>> San Francisco!
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Aug 2015, at 10:22, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org
>>>>> <mailto:bil.corry at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tabulation is described as thus (emphasis is mine):
>>>>>
>>>>> "Attendance is tabulated after every scheduled meeting for
>>>>> the purpose of determining if the 75% attendance
>>>>> requirement has been met, and the tabulation is *based
>>>>> upon the entire calendar year.*"
>>>>>
>>>>> That means if there are 12 meetings during the year and
>>>>> you miss the first meeting, your attendance is 11/12 or
>>>>> 92%. No vote required.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as your other concerns, I've updated the text
>>>>> below, hopefully I've covered it all? I pulled deadlines
>>>>> out of thin air, so feel free to tweak the numbers and
>>>>> method of voting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *SECTION 3.03 Regular Meetings.* The Board of Directors
>>>>> shall have regular meetings as needed. A link to the
>>>>> board meeting agenda’s and the historical minutes is here:
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings.
>>>>> Meetings shall be at such dates, times, and places as the
>>>>> Board shall determine in December of the preceding year
>>>>> and as amended by the Board. In no event will there be
>>>>> less than one meeting per quarter. These meetings will be
>>>>> open to public attendance, however, certain portions of
>>>>> the meeting may be closed to board members and their
>>>>> delegates when required for legal reasons, or to shield
>>>>> liability, or to handle personnel issues, or similar.
>>>>> Attendance in person or virtually by board members is
>>>>> required at no less than 75% of the total meetings each
>>>>> year and shall be highly encouraged to meet in person at
>>>>> least once annually at a date to be announced and agreed
>>>>> upon. Attendance is tabulated by the Executive Director or
>>>>> delegate within seven days after every scheduled meeting
>>>>> for the purpose of determining if the 75% attendance
>>>>> requirement has been met, and the tabulation is based upon
>>>>> the entire calendar year. Cancelled meetings are
>>>>> considered attended for the purposes of the tabulation.
>>>>> Failure by a board member to meet the 75% attendance
>>>>> requirement after any tabulation will cause a mandatory
>>>>> vote of confidence by the remaining board members, whose
>>>>> votes will be publicly recorded. The vote of confidence
>>>>> is to take place within 21 days, but not sooner than 7
>>>>> days, of notification by the Executive Director or
>>>>> delegate that a board member has not met the attendance
>>>>> threshold. During the first seven days, the board member
>>>>> in question will have an opportunity to make their case to
>>>>> their fellow board members. The vote of confidence will
>>>>> take place on the OWASP Board of Directors email list,
>>>>> unless the Board votes to review the matter at their next
>>>>> meeting, so long as the next meeting occurs within the
>>>>> 21-day window. An overall vote of "confidence" is record
>>>>> if half or more of the board members vote for it and it
>>>>> will prevent further votes of confidence for the remainder
>>>>> of the year so long as the board member in question does
>>>>> not miss any further meetings. An overall vote of "no
>>>>> confidence" is recorded if more than half of the board
>>>>> members vote for it, which causes the board member in
>>>>> question to be instantly removed from their seat on the
>>>>> board. Vacancies on the board are handled as per Section 3.10.
>>>>>
>>>>> _
>>>>> _
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 OWASP Board of Directors will hold quarterly board
>>>>> meetings lasting 46 hours each. The schedule of meetings
>>>>> will be set by the board in December before the year. It
>>>>> is likely the the board meetings will take place on
>>>>> Saturdays or on a dedicated day before a large OWASP
>>>>> conference. This change is a result of the success of the
>>>>> longer format board meeting and also a result of the
>>>>> Executive Director role that has enabled full time
>>>>> involvement and focus on OWASP operations. Board members
>>>>> must attend (in person or virtually) 3 of the 4 meetings
>>>>> to fulfill the attendance requirements. This will take
>>>>> effect in January, 2014. Changes passed August 19, 2013.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 “and shall be highly encouraged to meet in person at
>>>>> least once annually at a date to be announced and agreed
>>>>> upon” amendment to document passed June 10, 2013.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Josh Sokol
>>>>> <josh.sokol at owasp.org <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I initiated a Board vote on the new text that you had
>>>>> proposed back in April or May this year and the Board
>>>>> unanimously voted to approve. Paul has been working
>>>>> to try to identify all of the changes that have been
>>>>> made (there's only been one or two this year) in order
>>>>> to get a new version of the Bylaws on the website.
>>>>> Regardless, the one that is there is definitely
>>>>> out-of-date.
>>>>>
>>>>> With respect to your update, thank you, I was thinking
>>>>> something similar as well, but this doesn't address a
>>>>> few of my bullet points:
>>>>>
>>>>> * The method of tabulation is unspecified. If we are
>>>>> tabulating sequentially, then we have a situation
>>>>> where if a Board member missed their first
>>>>> meeting, a vote is required to be held for three
>>>>> tabulations (0%, 50%, and 66%) until they make it
>>>>> up over 75%. I am guessing that the intent is for
>>>>> this to be tabulated assuming attendance for all
>>>>> future meetings and action would be taken if the
>>>>> person would be unable to maintain 75% attendance,
>>>>> but if anyone disagrees and has a different
>>>>> interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>> * The timeframe for the vote is unspecified. It just
>>>>> says that it will cause a mandatory vote of
>>>>> confidence, but never says when that vote is
>>>>> supposed to take place or who is supposed to
>>>>> initiate it. Is it to be handled immediately at
>>>>> the time of tabulation? Is it handled offline over
>>>>> e-mail as we recently did? Is it handled at the
>>>>> next Board meeting? Based on the current verbiage,
>>>>> technically the Board could drag it's heels on it
>>>>> indefinitely. I would think that something
>>>>> reasonable would be having the vote initiated by
>>>>> our Executive Director within two weeks of the
>>>>> tabulation that found them to be not meeting their
>>>>> attendance requirements. If there is a Board
>>>>> meeting during that window, then it could be
>>>>> handled then, or handled via the mailing list
>>>>> otherwise. That provides time to handle the
>>>>> situation and removes any Board member bias from
>>>>> the initiation of the vote.
>>>>> * This does not offer the offender an opportunity to
>>>>> explain why they failed to meet their attendance
>>>>> requirement. I think that a reasonable process
>>>>> would assume that there is a rational explanation
>>>>> for why they did not attend. Maybe it's because
>>>>> all of the meetings were being held at 2 AM in
>>>>> their timezone. Maybe it's because of a death in
>>>>> the family. I think this process should take the
>>>>> personal factor into consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you care to take a stab at addressing these? If
>>>>> not, I can certainly take a shot at it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Bil Corry
>>>>> <bil.corry at owasp.org <mailto:bil.corry at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> The current bylaw I see is from last year, which
>>>>> doesn't have the text you quoted. It's here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Foundation_ByLaws
>>>>>
>>>>> I know we discussed changing the bylaws, but I
>>>>> don't know what was ultimately adopted. FWIW, this
>>>>> is the wording from last proposed text, which is
>>>>> very clear on how tabulation is calculated,
>>>>> although it doesn't give strict time limes for
>>>>> tabulation and confidence voting. The thought was
>>>>> to allow the Board some flexibility in how they
>>>>> want to execute it. But if you'd like it to be
>>>>> formally incorporated into the bylaws, then please
>>>>> proposed some text.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *SECTION 3.03 Regular Meetings.* The Board of
>>>>> Directors shall have regular meetings as needed.
>>>>> A link to the board meeting agenda’s and the
>>>>> historical minutes is here:
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings.
>>>>> Meetings shall be at such dates, times, and
>>>>> places as the Board shall determine in December of
>>>>> the preceding year and as amended by the Board. In
>>>>> no event will there be less than one meeting per
>>>>> quarter. These meetings will be open to public
>>>>> attendance, however, certain portions of the
>>>>> meeting may be closed to board members and their
>>>>> delegates when required for legal reasons, or to
>>>>> shield liability, or to handle personnel issues,
>>>>> or similar. Attendance in person or virtually by
>>>>> board members is required at no less than 75% of
>>>>> the total meetings each year and shall be highly
>>>>> encouraged to meet in person at least once
>>>>> annually at a date to be announced and agreed
>>>>> upon. Attendance is tabulated after every
>>>>> scheduled meeting for the purpose of determining
>>>>> if the 75% attendance requirement has been met,
>>>>> and the tabulation is based upon the entire
>>>>> calendar year. Cancelled meetings are considered
>>>>> attended for the purposes of the tabulation.
>>>>> Failure by a board member to meet the 75%
>>>>> attendance requirement after any tabulation will
>>>>> cause a mandatory vote of confidence by the
>>>>> remaining board members, whose votes will be
>>>>> publicly recorded. An overall vote of "no
>>>>> confidence" is recorded if half or more of the
>>>>> board members vote for it, which causes the board
>>>>> member in question to be instantly removed from
>>>>> their seat on the board. Vacancies on the board
>>>>> are handled as per Section 3.10.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 OWASP Board of Directors will hold quarterly
>>>>> board meetings lasting 46 hours each. The
>>>>> schedule of meetings will be set by the board in
>>>>> December before the year. It is likely the the
>>>>> board meetings will take place on Saturdays or on
>>>>> a dedicated day before a large OWASP conference.
>>>>> This change is a result of the success of the
>>>>> longer format board meeting and also a result of
>>>>> the Executive Director role that has enabled full
>>>>> time involvement and focus on OWASP operations.
>>>>> Board members must attend (in person or virtually)
>>>>> 3 of the 4 meetings to fulfill the attendance
>>>>> requirements. This will take effect in January,
>>>>> 2014. Changes passed August 19, 2013.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 “and shall be highly encouraged to meet in
>>>>> person at least once annually at a date to be
>>>>> announced and agreed upon” amendment to document
>>>>> passed June 10, 2013.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Josh Sokol
>>>>> <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>>>>> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Board,
>>>>>
>>>>> As recently discussed and voted on in a
>>>>> separate thread, our current Bylaws state as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> /Failure by a board member to meet the 75%
>>>>> attendance requirement after any tabulation
>>>>> will cause a mandatory vote of confidence by
>>>>> the remaining board members, whose votes will
>>>>> be publicly recorded. An overall vote of "no
>>>>> confidence" is recorded if half or more of the
>>>>> board members vote for it, which causes the
>>>>> board member in question to be instantly
>>>>> removed from their seat on the board./
>>>>>
>>>>> I see a few issues with this:
>>>>>
>>>>> * The timeframe that this applies to is
>>>>> unspecified. Is it per quarter? Per
>>>>> calendar year? Over the two year duration
>>>>> of a Board member term? Over the
>>>>> cumulative time that a Board member is in
>>>>> office? I'm guessing that the intent is
>>>>> for this to be over the calendar year, but
>>>>> if anyone disagrees and has a different
>>>>> interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>> * The definition of "tabulation" is
>>>>> unspecified. Who is doing the tabulation?
>>>>> Is there a certain time that this
>>>>> tabulation is conducted? I'm guessing that
>>>>> the intent is for this to be based on the
>>>>> attendance role that is captured during
>>>>> the Board meeting, but if anyone disagrees
>>>>> and has a different interpretation, please
>>>>> let me know.
>>>>> * The method of tabulation is unspecified.
>>>>> If we are tabulating sequentially, then we
>>>>> have a situation where if a Board member
>>>>> missed their first meeting, a vote is
>>>>> required to be held for three tabulations
>>>>> (0%, 50%, and 66%) until they make it up
>>>>> over 75%. I am guessing that the intent is
>>>>> for this to be tabulated assuming
>>>>> attendance for all future meetings and
>>>>> action would be taken if the person would
>>>>> be unable to maintain 75% attendance, but
>>>>> if anyone disagrees and has a different
>>>>> interpretation, please let me know.
>>>>> * The timeframe for the vote is unspecified.
>>>>> It just says that it will cause a
>>>>> mandatory vote of confidence, but never
>>>>> says when that vote is supposed to take
>>>>> place or who is supposed to initiate it.
>>>>> Is it to be handled immediately at the
>>>>> time of tabulation? Is it handled offline
>>>>> over e-mail as we recently did? Is it
>>>>> handled at the next Board meeting? Based
>>>>> on the current verbiage, technically the
>>>>> Board could drag it's heels on it
>>>>> indefinitely. I would think that something
>>>>> reasonable would be having the vote
>>>>> initiated by our Executive Director within
>>>>> two weeks of the tabulation that found
>>>>> them to be not meeting their attendance
>>>>> requirements. If there is a Board meeting
>>>>> during that window, then it could be
>>>>> handled then, or handled via the mailing
>>>>> list otherwise. That provides time to
>>>>> handle the situation and removes any Board
>>>>> member bias from the initiation of the vote.
>>>>> * This does not offer the offender an
>>>>> opportunity to explain why they failed to
>>>>> meet their attendance requirement. I think
>>>>> that a reasonable process would assume
>>>>> that there is a rational explanation for
>>>>> why they did not attend. Maybe it's
>>>>> because all of the meetings were being
>>>>> held at 2 AM in their timezone. Maybe it's
>>>>> because of a death in the family. I think
>>>>> this process should take the personal
>>>>> factor into consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the above in mind, I don't see a reason
>>>>> to lower the bar from 75%. My thinking is
>>>>> that this is a reasonable expectation to have
>>>>> of a Board member with all things being
>>>>> equal. It may not be the best measure of
>>>>> engagement, but it is still a responsibility
>>>>> that all Board members are aware of going into
>>>>> it, and I am not aware of it having been an
>>>>> issue in the past (until now), so I'm not sure
>>>>> why we would change it now that one Board
>>>>> member had a vote initiated for it. I would
>>>>> propose that we update the language in order
>>>>> to better clarify my bullet points above, but
>>>>> leave the requirement itself in place. Please
>>>>> provide your thoughts regarding each of these
>>>>> bullet points (or any other issues that you
>>>>> think need to be addressed here). Once we
>>>>> have some level of agreement with these, I can
>>>>> take the action item of re-writing this
>>>>> section of the Bylaws in order to incorporate
>>>>> these changes. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>>> Governance at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Governance at lists.owasp.org>
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>> Governance at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Governance at lists.owasp.org>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org <https://www.owasp.org/>
>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Governance mailing list
>> Governance at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Governance at lists.owasp.org>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150830/95341104/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Owasp-board
mailing list