[Owasp-board] Proposal to Eliminate "At Large" Board Positions

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Oct 1 19:11:41 UTC 2015

A few thoughts:
1. I would also very much like to see the committees be build by the 
community, however, at this point, I get the feeling that this is not 
happening. Not quite sure why. But I see this as the reality we have to 
accept for the time being.
2. for the areas, actually, I have a different view, I would be fine for 
the board members to be "at large". But I can see a use for certain 
focus points to be driven by individual board members. Btw. most boards 
have sub-committees (chaired by some of the board members) that focus on 
specific areas and develop mature proposals before they are presented to 
the whole board for tweaking and approval. In fact that would probably 
be useful for us as well as it could improve the maturity of proposal 
drafts coming to the board meetings. I don't mind to have a broad 
discussion, but in a number of cases, when 2-3 people work on refining a 
proposal first, that can later streamline the overall discussion in the 
board and with the community.
So I rather not see these focus areas in the hand of one board member, 
but could see us have one board member lead a small design team for 
certain areas on preparing the drafts to a better quality level. IMHO 
that does not mean that each and every board member has to take on one 
area. Of course, I would strongly encourage sharing and balancing of 
work load on these tasks.

My thoughts on this. Not sure that answers your question.

Best regards, Tobias

On 29/09/15 16:58, Josh Sokol wrote:
> I have no issues with rebuilding the committees, but I feel that they 
> should be built by the community, not by the Board. This is less 
> operational and more "vision" of the organization in those areas.
> ~josh
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Matt Konda <matt.konda at owasp.org 
> <mailto:matt.konda at owasp.org>> wrote:
>     Josh,
>     Interesting idea.  I like that it emphasizes projects and chapters
>     explicitly.
>     What would your thinking be on that versus rebuilding committees
>     and asking all board members to be active in at least one committee?
>     Matt
>     On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org
>     <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>         Board,
>         I wanted to make a proposal regarding the positions that are
>         determined at the beginning of the year amongst the new Board
>         members.  The more I think about it, the more I dislike the
>         concept of an "At Large" Board position. I get it.  It's kind
>         a catch-all for those who don't have a specific role, but I
>         would like to change it to be more specific.  I would like to
>         propose to change the Board positions to:
>         Chair
>         Vice Chair
>         Treasurer
>         Secretary
>         Governance
>         Projects
>         Chapters
>         The idea being that these "At Large" positions are now given
>         specific areas of focus.  They are tasked with providing
>         updates and contemplating initiatives that would provide value
>         in those areas.  We can work on a more formal write-up later,
>         but I wanted to see what others thought about the idea.
>         ~josh

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151001/f0013880/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list