[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 15:58:00 UTC 2015

Thanks Josh,

That makes sense for 2017 planning.

My concern was that with #3 the "$61,291.02 to be budgeted for 2016" could
potentially go untouched by some chapters. Imagine 25 chapters that choose
to spend $0 of the $500 in 2016. What happens to that 25*$500 dollars when
2017 rolls around? Does it stay in the chapter budget indefinitely or
return to the foundation for new budgeting in 2017?

This is actually a pretty small amount so I'm not that concerned. But I
wanted to avoid the creation of new "ring fenced" funds that we don't have
planning on how to handle if it goes stale. This would only be for
scenarios when the chapter spends none of the $500 funds provided.

I'd be just fine with an addition to item #3 that gives us room to
reevaluate for 2017 e.g. "Chapters that choose not to spend any funds of
the $500 duriby December, 2016 will have those funds reevaluated by the
foundation for 2017 budgetting"

Michael Coates | @_mwc <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
OWASP Global Board

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> Michael,
> With respect to #3, at this point this is a one-time only initiative with
> a note that we should consider it in future years.  I like your idea, but
> feel like since the language here indicates only on January 1, 2016, it's
> not necessary for this vote.  I will update my notes to consider that for
> 2017.
> With respect to #4, it depends on our intent.  Startup is often times the
> most difficult for new chapters and projects.  My goal was to add fuel to
> their fire by giving them a kickstart.  Putting additional requirements on
> this would slow that process down so I'm inclined against that limitation.
> ~josh
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>> I feel pretty good about it overall. I'm good with all proposals with the
>> exception of minor notes for consideration on 3 and 4
>> I have a small request for item #3. Chapters which have spent $0 by the
>> end of 2016 will have the $500 fund removed from the chapter balance and
>> this initial funding must be reevaluated and reapproved by the foundation
>> for 2017.
>> My concern is if we give out all these booster funds and then some
>> chapters don't touch them at all in 2016. This suggested addition does not
>> mean they automatically loose the funds but it does mean the board has to
>> reevaluate those booster funds (if they were entirely untouched in 2016)
>> before they are reallocated to chapter in 2017.
>> For proposal #4 should we not wait until the project  reaches lab status?
>> For the chapter what about waiting until the chapter holds 2 meetings
>> before granting the funds?
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Board,
>> Almost two weeks has past since my funding proposal was put on hold at
>> the September Board Meeting.  It's been put out for the community to
>> comment on and, after some discussion, I made a couple of subtle tweaks for
>> clarification purposes to proposals 9 and 10, but it is otherwise pretty
>> much the same proposal as what I had originally presented.  We have had a
>> couple of members of the community communicate in favor of the plan.  The
>> two dissenters, Azzedine and Richard, have been addressed after a
>> clarification of the wording and intent.  The only Board member who I have
>> received feedback on it during this time period is Jim, and I believe he
>> stated that his issues have been sufficiently addressed.  Are there any
>> other concerns out there before it can be brought to a vote?  Here are the
>> current proposals:
>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Proposal_for_2015-09-25_OWASP_Board_Meeting
>> If there are no further comments and we feel that two weeks is a
>> sufficient time for feedback, then I would like to proceed with an e-mail
>> vote so that we do not have to waste additional time on it during the
>> October Board Meeting.  Thoughts?
>> ~josh
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151008/7d2c5da5/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list