[Owasp-board] How to define active leader?

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Mon Oct 12 13:43:10 UTC 2015


In my opinion, the second leader requirement comes in more when it comes to
requesting expense reimbursement.  Specifically, it creates the ability for
a chapter or project to have dual-signoffs on expenses.  If you say you
have a second leader, but they aren't available to approve expenses, then
you're really only screwing yourself.

~josh

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Noreen Whysel <noreen.whysel at owasp.org>
wrote:

> I believe I already addressed most of this in my previous comments.
> Summary:
>
> Neither active chapter nor active leader is explicitly defined in the
> handbook.
>
> In practice, I use these definitions:
> Active chapter: must meet or exceed current minimum chapter requirements
> Active leader: must be responsive to inquiries.
>
> Leader activity is much harder to measure where there is more than one.
> All we really see at the Foundation level is who is making edits to the
> wiki page and who is active on the leader list. We have no way to know that
> a leader is active because they are the one reaching out to potential
> speakers, arranging catering, interacting with academic leaders. So in
> those chapters with multiple leaders it really comes down to trust and the
> opinion of their peers, if necessary (as in getting a second leader to
> approve an expense, for example).
>
> Regarding requiring more than one leader to receive community engagement
> funding. An example is Manila. John Patrick Lita has done a lot of good,
> measurable work on his own introducing the concept of application security
> throughout the country. He was hesitant to add second leaders when
> volunteers came forward because he felt they did not understand the OWASP
> mission and AppSec well enough to represent OWASP at that level. As he
> introduced the concepts, he found people who he felt would make good
> leaders and added one to Manila and supported the creation of a second
> chapter in Viscayas.
>
> This seems to be the case in other small markets, even in the U.S. A
> leader wants to introduce AppSec concepts and gain a comfort level before
> expanding the team. Some small seed money helps these chapters over the
> hurdle of introducing OWASP to a community.
>
> All that said, to be honest I am on the fence about whether or not to
> require a second leader or deputy and am ok with the board coming to a
> determination on that. Just noting that beyond the responsiveness of the
> main contact on a chapter record and watching for wiki page updates, it is
> hard to evaluate leader activity.
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 10:40 PM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> Re: The question about the OWASP Chapter Handbook and* 'where' it defines
> the need for # of Leaders* and an 'Active' Chapter.
>
> In the Handbook under Chapter Governance, Chapter 5, it only requires 1
> Leader at this time....although more leaders are strongly recommended and
> the hand book encourages more.
> *Chapter Leader (or Coordinator): The only governance requirement for
> every chapter is to nominate a Chapter Leader, who is the central point of
> contact for the chapter and responsible to the OWASP Board. In case of
> dispute over the leader role, we suggest rotation over the 24 month term,
> if there are multiple candidates and no rotation agreement, elections
> should be held for a 24 months term*
>
> *What Defines an Action Chapter.*
> Currently in Chapter 2 of the Handbook, 'Mandatory Chapter Rules', any
> chapter holding a minimum of 2 chapter meetings a year is defined as an
> 'Active' Chapter.
>
> *Must a Chapter Leader be a Paid Member or Honorary Member?*   Unless I
> missed it...I do not see a requirement that a Chapter Leader 'must' have a
> paid membership.
> @ Noreen can you confirm this and if you have additional comments, please
> add them.
>
> Finally...*.on the issue of these Proposals requiring 2 Active Leaders*.
> I agree with this criteria, and although "current" rules do not require 2
> Active Leaders.....the 'new proposal' to add 'Seed Money' to some under
> funded chapters is consistent with providing 2 "leader / managers" to help
> run the chapter, recruit more members and wisely utilize OWASP budget
> monies.
> At the Operations Level, we would confirm that a 2nd Chapter leader was
> identified and participating before "posting' the $500 to the Chapter
> budget.
>
> My thoughts on the proposal strategy as well as the implementation.
>
> regards, paul
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
> OWASP Executive Director
> paul.ritchie at owasp.org
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there a place in the chapter leader handbook,etc where we define what
>> is an active leader?
>>
>> Plenty of the proposals that are being submitted for approval require “2
>> active leaders” to request funding, etc.
>>
>> I think it should be clearly defined somewhere… e.g. is it being a paid
>> member being active? what is the criteria?
>>
>> Also, who is going to review/approve whether a particular chapter/project
>> has 2 active leaders?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Fabio Cerullo
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> https://www.owasp.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151012/8f2908a4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list