[Owasp-board] OWASP Funding Proposal

Jim Manico 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 
you!

Aloha,
Jim



On 10/8/15 9:40 PM, Tobias wrote:
> 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
>

-- 
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/20151008/8d3957e8/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list