[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal
tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:26:19 UTC 2015
Hi Josh and Michael,
I agree with the notion from Michael, that it could be better to outline
that we don't want to put this money into stale elements. Maybe if we
spell out what shall happen in such cases at the end of 2016, can help
to avoid this. Or it woudl cause a "spending frenzy"....
I would agree with the proposal in both forms.
Best regards, Tobias
On 08/10/15 17:58, Michael Coates wrote:
> 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
> 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
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
> 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.
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Michael Coates
> <michael.coates at owasp.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:josh.sokol at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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.
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board