[Owasp-board] Motion to approve proposal 2

Paul Ritchie paul.ritchie at owasp.org
Tue Oct 13 19:06:23 UTC 2015


Hi Fabio, All:

Trying to keep all the email threads straight, and I believe this question
on proposal #2 is still open.
(Although I believe we have 5 Yes votes already)

*Are there any complications on proposal #2, from accounting perspective?*

To remove the negative balances is not a big challenge.  The accounting
folks have already identified the method of credits and debits required to
balance the books.  Since the actual payments have already been made in the
past, there is no change to our actual cash balances.  It is an internal
set of bookkeeping entries that offset each other.  As of October 2, there
was about $800 of negative balance on the Chapter list and about $500 on
the Project side.  Since the Foundation "already paid" these bills on
behalf of the project/chapter....this is like a debt owed back to the
Foundation. By making the balance zero, we are essentially 'writing off'
that 'over-spend' by the project/chapter.

*The Caution:*   As long as this proposal retains the "subject to
Foundation approval' for "out of budget requests" clause I am OK
>>  Normal approval process remains in effect if a project or chapter asks
for more money than in their budget.
>>  Special 'out of budget' requests would be approved if they met
guidelines AND we had excess money in the Community engagement Buckets.
>>  Special 'out of budget' requests would NOT be approved if they DID NOT
meet guidelines......or the Community & Project Budgets were low or empty.

Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
OWASP Executive Director
paul.ritchie at owasp.org


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Are there any complications regarding this proposal from an accounting
> perspective?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fabio Cerullo
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> https://www.owasp.org
>
> On 13 Oct 2015, at 2:55 a.m., Matt Konda <matt.konda at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> For #2 I vote yes.
>
> I assume that Michael does since he seconded it above.  We also have Jim,
> Josh and Andrew's votes.
>
> Missing Tobias and Fabio.  Input?
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I like this one. I will vote for it.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Josh. So I second all funding proposals on the table that need
>>> seconding. Will wait for discussion to vote.
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://appsecusa.org/> 2015!
>>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 4:24 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> To follow the process...discussion first, then votes.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I vote yes for all current funding proposals on the table.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://appsecusa.org/> 2015!
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:25 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Second.
>>>>
>>>> (I'd be fine to vote for the entire series of proposals too, but happy
>>>> to move along this one)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Coates | @_mwc
>>>> <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=_mwc>
>>>> OWASP Global Board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to motion that we approve proposal 2 of the funding
>>>>> initiative discussed at the last Board meeting.  The exact wording is as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> *There should be no such thing as negative account balances for
>>>>> chapters or projects going forward.  If the intent is to spend more money
>>>>> than is currently in the account, the money should be taken and approved
>>>>> from Foundation funding sources, subject to Foundation approval. *
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I hear a second?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20151013/38fa0645/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list