[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal
tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:40:38 UTC 2015
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
One important element is to send round the proposals and preparation
material a few days ahead of time, so people can prepare. Otherwise this
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
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
> Board meetings should NOT be about updates, they should be about
> essential decision making that cannot be done over email.
> 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:
>>> 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. Thoughts?
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> Jim Manico
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board