[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:25:13 UTC 2015


 > Ps.: our next board meeting is on October 14th. I propose to simply 
add this to the agenda there. If we can resolve the clarification items, 
I am also ok to e-vote on them before that.

Tobias. I feel our board meetings have been very inefficient. I suggest:

1) We drop the 25 minutes of having the staff report to us. That is 
something we can read ahead of time. The board meeting should be 
reserved for "essential questions or debates that cannot happen over 
email" instead of reading of reports that we can read ahead of time.  I 
completely want to hear any critical questions from staff... But I can 
read!
2) Enforce that everyone does their homework before a board meeting.
2) As a board we should do more work via email which is very efficient 
vs a 7 way debate from type A individuals which is not. Via email 
everyone gets to express themselves, we cannot do this via a board 
meeting. And I feel like we spend tons of time on not very important 
things at board meetings, and as soon as conversations of substance come 
up, it's shut down. I'd like that to be the other way around.

For consideration, see 
http://www.thefundraisingauthority.com/strategy-and-planning/more-productive-board-meetings/. 
Board meetings should NOT be about updates, they should be about 
essential decision making that cannot be done over email.

Aloha,
Jim




On 10/8/15 2:15 PM, Tobias wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> I gave my feedback during the last board meeting.
>
> But let me provide feedback in a more structured way going through the 
> latest list.
> I agree with nearly all of them. Only for for some, I think we need to 
> clarify a little bit more.
>
> Proposal 1: Agreed. But if I recall correctly your proposal #1 was 
> already approved at the last board meeting. So I think we can consider 
> that done.
>
>
> Proposal 2: Agreed
>
> *Proposal 3: **needs clarification**
> *I think we need to spell out what we mean with an "active chapter" as 
> we are using the term as a criteria in proposal 3? Is that a 
> mailing-list with no traffic and no meetings, but two leaders on the 
> wiki page? Or would "active" mean they have some meetings and maybe a 
> handful of members? My proposal for the definition of "active chapter" 
> would be something like at least 3 emails on the mailing-list in the 
> last year, at least one meeting and at least 5 members. Is this enough 
> to count as active? For "active projects", I am less clear what is an 
> active project? Just a project page with no content and no 
> communication or subscribers on the mailing-list except for the two 
> leaders? Would this already be an active project? Any thoughts how we 
> can describe this term from proposal 3?
>
> Proposal 4: "Upon creation of a new project or chapter, as long as 
> they have at least two leaders they will be allocated a $500 budget to 
> begin with."
> *COMMENT: *I have been thinking a bit more on Michael's comment last 
> night to reward activity. And I think some reward mechanism for 
> chapter activity and project status would be right. IMO we should be 
> consistent and apply the same criteria for "active" as we did in 
> proposal 3.
>
> Proposal 5: Agreed
>
> *Proposal 6: propose minor revision of wording to clarify**
> *> Proposal 6: If a request for funding has been approved for one 
> chapter or project, then it can be considered an acceptable
> > expense for all chapters or projects.  If they have an account 
> balance which covers that expense in full, then they should
> > be considered pre-approved for spending.
>
> I agree in spirit, but I think this needs clarification and am a bit 
> concerned about liberal interpretations of what is the same expense 
> type. Expenses tend to not be exactly identical and I like to safe 
> chapter and project leads from searching the public expense lists for 
> precedence. As one example if a flight ticket is approved for a 
> chapter leader to attend the AppSec chapter leader workshop, that 
> should not mean we also approve a flight ticket to Bahamas for holiday 
> for another chapter leader. Technically both are flight expenses for 
> chapter leaders. (I know I am splitting hairs...)
>
> *Suggested revision: **
> *Proposal 6: If a request for funding has been approved for one 
> chapter or project, then it can be considered an acceptable expense 
> for all chapters or projects. Our operations team shall periodically 
> (at least once every 3 months) review the list of published expenses 
> and if new expense types come up add them to the published list of 
> acceptable expenses. If the chapters or projects have an account 
> balance which covers that expense in full, then they should be 
> considered pre-approved for spending.
>
>
> Proposal 7: Agreed.
> (Personally for me bi-monthly or quarterly would also be ok, but am 
> also in agreement with monthly. )
>
> Proposal 8: Agreed.
>
> Revised Proposal 9: Agreed.
> (on a note: technically, this is already the case today, but I don't 
> mind making this more explicit.)
>
> Revised Proposal 10: Agreed.
>
>
> *New Proposal 11: **
> *Building on Michael's and your comment about rewarding active 
> projects. I very much like that idea!
> And I would have a friendly additional proposal.
> Proposal 11:
> Any project newly reaching lab status receives a one-time extra USD500 
> into their project account.
> Any project newly reaching flagship status receives a one-time extra 
> USD1000 into their project account.
>
> This could add some nice gamification feature for projects that are 
> often underfunded and could make the maturity status of projects more 
> exciting. What do you think about that?
>
> Best regards, Tobias
>
>
> Ps.: our next board meeting is on October 14th. I propose to simply 
> add this to the agenda there. If we can resolve the clarification 
> items, I am also ok to e-vote on them before that.
>
>
>
> On 08/10/15 05:54, Josh Sokol 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

-- 
Jim Manico
Global Board Member
OWASP Foundation
https://www.owasp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151008/64f53557/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list