[Owasp-board] Board meeting on Oct - 14 - list of topics

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri Oct 9 11:43:44 UTC 2015


Tobias and Simon,

I am very disappointed at the vendors in question and I think this 
situation is leaving a very negative impression on our community at 
large. But I too am not sure what the best course of action is. This is 
a very tricky situation. :(

Aloha,
Jim


On 10/9/15 1:26 PM, Tobias wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> thanks a lot for bringing this up and reminding.
> Highly appreciated.
> It is bad luck you won't be able to join the call, but in addition to 
> put it on the agenda, if you have a specific proposal or suggestion 
> what action should be take, please feel free to send beforehand via 
> email, either in public to the board list or to some board members for 
> consideration.
>
> I have been thinking about this project situation for quite a bit now 
> and am still not sure what is the right answer.
>
> Best, Tobias
>
>
> On 09/10/15 11:39, psiinon wrote:
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> If it was at a more reasonable time for me I'd join in, but 
>> unfortunately its not.
>> Look forward to seeing what's decided...
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org 
>> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     I will add this to the agenda.
>>
>>     - Jim
>>
>>
>>     On 10/9/15 11:28 AM, psiinon wrote:
>>>     *sigh*
>>>
>>>     So no discussion about the Benchmark project then?
>>>
>>>     I think the board _should_ discuss it, and I've explicitly asked
>>>     for it to be discussed.
>>>
>>>     I dont think I'll be the only OWASP member who will be
>>>     disappointed it its not....
>>>
>>>     Simon
>>>
>>>     On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Tobias
>>>     <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org <mailto:tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Dear fellow board members,
>>>
>>>         for our meeting on Oct-14 and in general I have the
>>>         following topics for your consideration:
>>>
>>>         * structuring of meetings:
>>>         To have a better time management, I like to introduce that
>>>         we in the future list proposed durations to each point, one
>>>         duration for you presenting the proposal, second duration
>>>         for discussion time if a vote is needed - 1min
>>>
>>>         * remove the section on chairman's and role reports and move
>>>         to a topic based agenda (3min)
>>>         IMO the different report sections for each board member are
>>>         not useful to keep us efficient. I would suggest to move to
>>>         a topic based agenda. Not in the order of roles.
>>>
>>>         * Start of Budgeting for 2016 discussion & timeline (2min)
>>>         This is just to announce that we initiate our budgeting
>>>         phase now for 2016. Which needs to close by December.
>>>
>>>         * start of review of Strategic Goals for 2015 and Discussion
>>>         on Strategic Goals for 2016 - timeline (2min)
>>>         This is just to announce that we initiate our budgeting
>>>         phase now for 2016. Which needs to close by December.
>>>
>>>         * evotes procedure: how many days should we wait between
>>>         second of motion to give all board members time to raise
>>>         discussion?
>>>         As we like to be able to conduct evotes, it would be good to
>>>         have a common understanding on the procedure.
>>>         making a motion and seconding it via emails is clear.
>>>         However, for the next step of giving opportunity for
>>>         discussion before we move to vote, I like to hear from the
>>>         board how much time we shall give to raise discussion
>>>         elements before we progress to an evote. This is not to set
>>>         a time limit on an ongoing discussion, but to understand the
>>>         timelimit we shall set for silence by board members in case
>>>         a topic is raised but not questions for discussion are
>>>         raised by board members before we can progress to an evote.
>>>
>>>         * bylaws: term limits (will raise in seperate email, 5 min,
>>>         initial discussion, vote could come next month or via evote)
>>>
>>>         Best regards, Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Jim Manico
>>     Global Board Member
>>     OWASP Foundation
>>     https://www.owasp.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
>

-- 
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/20151009/5dbdd29b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list