[Owasp-board] RSA

Bev Corwin bev.corwin at owasp.org
Sun May 31 23:22:21 UTC 2015


Hi Micheal,

Ok, Just a few quick thoughts:

Without an overall strategic approach for relationships and relationship
models, and without their legal frameworks reviewed and approved by legal
advisors, this case by case basis may work for a while, but I can see
potential conflicts with this approach longer term. If OWASP is currently
receiving public funds for existing projects, especially, this may put
OWASP in more of a "PPP - public private partnership" space, rather than
purely "public charity" space, and, therefore, could be held to much higher
legal standards. Something that I would want to review with legal advisors
to assure appropriate frameworks with any external relationship models.

I also think that Jim is right about partnering directly with commercial
entities, especially since OWASP already has defined appropriate
relationships with commercial entities through sponsorships, for example.
Partnering on an event in a direct co-marketing relationship may be more
appropriate as a media event partner basis, rather than co-producing /
profit sharing, etc., events. As Jim also mentioned, another non profit or
public private consortium may be better suited for implementing any
co-production partnerships. Therefore, I tend to support media partners for
events as opposed to co-production partnerships with events. Also,
commercial entities might be better suited as an OWASP event sponsors,
based on what I've read here in previous posts.

However, I often go back to OWASP's Purpose Statement: "Be the thriving
global community that drives visibility and evolution in the safety and
security of the world’s software." and also from OWASP's Values: "
*INNOVATION* OWASP encourages and supports innovation and experiments for
solutions to software security challenges." Therefore, If OWASP drives
visibility and evolution, and encourages and supports innovation, perhaps
there are broader and more flexible relationship innovations that OWASP
could explore, for some of these relationships in the future, but this is a
conversation that needs to happen so that the appropriate relationship
models can be better defined, and approved by legal advisors, etc.

Just my two cents for now. I'll put some more thought into these matters
and may have more to say later. In the meantime, I believe that having
these conversations is important, IMHO. Best wishes, Bev

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Bev,
>
> Can you elaborate more on why we need to better define this? Is there a
> particular concern you're noticing?
>
> In general the operations team evaluates partnership opportunities in a
> case by case basis and seems to be doing a great job.
>
> I'm just looking to understand your view better.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On May 31, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> It sounds like OWASP needs to better define "appropriate" collaboration
> models for External Development and external relationships. is there an
> External Development Committee?
>
> Bev
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, definitely not.  Not intending to minimize at all. I want us to be
>> open to discussions about the various areas to determine if it provides
>> value to Owasp. That's why I mention our mission doesn't preclude us from
>> evaluating the situation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 31, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I wouldn't say that our mission circles around not endorsing
>> commercial endeavors.
>>
>> Fair wordsmithing, but it's still a critical aspect to our organization
>> and is a critical factor in motivating our volunteer corps. I suggest you
>> take it seriously and do not minimize it, Michael.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> @Manicode
>> (808) 652-3805
>>
>> On May 31, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> A good item for discussion on the board call. I wouldn't say that our
>> mission circles around not endorsing commercial endeavors. The two snippets
>> below point at the primary goal of software security visibility and the
>> second quote points about freedom from commercial pressure but also
>> acknowledgement that inforaed use of commercial technology is fine.
>>
>> My point is that from a mission perspective I don't believe we have to
>> actively avoid a more commercial conference. Of course, it it provides no
>> value then that's another thing.
>>
>> Food for thought, good item to discuss on the board call.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Our mission is to make software security visible, so that individuals
>> and organizations worldwide can make informed decisions about true software
>> security risks."
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/About_The_Open_Web_Application_Security_Project
>>
>> "Our freedom from commercial pressures allows us to provide unbiased,
>> practical, cost-effective information about application security. OWASP is
>> not affiliated with any technology company, although we support the
>> informed use of commercial security technology."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Coates | @_mwc <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
>> OWASP Global Board
>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://AppSecUSA.org> 2015 in San Francisco!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Part of our mission is not to endorse commercial endeavors. I feel that
>>> must be a part of the conversation with RSA or any OWASP partnership.
>>>
>>> Thanks all,
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> @Manicode
>>> (808) 652-3805
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> thanks for bringing this on the board list.
>>>
>>> I agree with Matt in that I see no problem at this point to have a
>>> conversation with RSA on potential cooperation. To my knowledge we have in
>>> the past not spend a lot of money on that, and I see no reason to change
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I also agree that we should prioritise our activities to maximise our
>>> outreach and strategic goals.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I would like to encourage reopening communication with RSA to
>>> explore opportunities that are of interest for OWASP to spread our mission.
>>>
>>> I suggest that we put this item for discussion and conclusion at our
>>> next board meeting on June-14.
>>> https://owasp.org/index.php/June_14,_2015
>>>
>>> Best regards, Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/05/15 16:00, Matt Konda wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>>  Building on an interesting question Fabio raised around talking with
>>> the RSA conference organizing committee to explore potential collaboration,
>>> here are my thoughts:
>>>
>>>    1. I have no problem with having a conversation.
>>>    2. I don't see RSA as strategically aligned with our objectives so I
>>>    wouldn't necessarily be inclined to invest a lot of money or time.
>>>    3. I would tend to favor targeting active efforts and investments
>>>    toward developer conferences and cross pollination.
>>>    4. Of course, RSA is a huge, vendor friendly conference so to the
>>>    extent that we can achieve mutually beneficial results that advance our
>>>    objectives (raise membership, increase involvement, etc.) without a very
>>>    significant investment I would be open to it.
>>>
>>> I just think we have to weigh the pros / cons of the setup and make sure
>>> we don't lose sight of our key goals.
>>>
>>>  I hope this makes sense.
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150531/1ca048a6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list