[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:33:28 UTC 2015


I am ok, to go on e-vote, if we can make the clarifications.
Btw. @Michael, Jim, et al.: please feel free to comment on my 
clarification suggestions and proposal 11.
Thanks, Tobias


On 08/10/15 21:24, Michael Coates wrote:
> I push to e-vote before hand. Let's not let this drag any further. 
> Great proposal that is 95% of the way there.
>
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org 
> <mailto:tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>> 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 <mailto: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/20151008/2c0afdbf/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list