[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal
jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 19:41:52 UTC 2015
Thanks kindly, Tobias. I already see you moving in this direction, thank
On 10/8/15 9:40 PM, Tobias wrote:
> 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
>> 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
Global Board Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board