[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:40:38 UTC 2015


Jim,

thank you for your point. I hear you and agree.
I had that reflection after our last board meeting in SF.
Coincidentally, I added some preparation notes to my invitation email 
for the next board meeting just now, that I hope would be in line with 
your expectations.

One important element is to send round the proposals and preparation 
material a few days ahead of time, so people can prepare. Otherwise this 
becomes impossible.

So please @all update the wiki page for the board meeting agenda and add 
your proposals at least 3 days beforehand. So we can read it before and 
be prepared.

Thanks, Tobias



On 08/10/15 21:25, Jim Manico wrote:
> > 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/20151008/17d41cfb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list