[Owasp-board] Motion to approve proposal 2

Paul Ritchie paul.ritchie at owasp.org
Tue Oct 13 23:58:33 UTC 2015


Hello Fabio, All:

*Re:  Will the Foundation cover unauthorized spending by a Chapter or
Project?*

I think this is clear.   A Chapter or Project is only authorized to spend
what is in their Budget, or what has been pre-approved in excess of that
budget from Foundation funds.
Any unauthorized overspending will not be covered by the Foundation.

Its a 'scale' issue.  It would be totally unmanageable and fiscally
irresponsible if OWASP just paid for overspending by 50, or 100 or more
Chapter/Project "oops" problems over the course of a year....especially on
a global scale.
Of course, each will be looked at separately to determine cause and whether
it was over by $10 or $1,000.

We provide them responsibility with full transparency on current Balance or
'Available' budget and full listing of recent transactions on a monthly
basis.
We provide them responsibility by adding funding up to $500 under one of
our new proposals at the start of the year.
We provide them responsibility with a clear pre-approval process posted on
the Wiki for access to Foundation funds.
(Note:  current process allows $500 requests up to 4x per year per Project
or Chapter, for a total of $2,000 from Foundation pre-approvals from our
Community Engagement Fund)

And, by end of year we will have communicated ***many*** times about the
process, the location for information, and the policy guidelines.

So, I think this is a very liberal program and very exciting for our
Project & Chapter leaders.  Now we need to trust them to do their part and
manage this responsibly with a minimum of 'surprises'.

My 2 cents and anticipated implementation.

Paul





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


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:

> Thanks Paul & Noreen for the insight.
>
> Looking at Noreen's example, say if a chapter with USD500 in their account
> spends USD700 (USD500 chapter funds + USD200 community engagement).
>
> Those USD200 might not have been pre-approved by the Foundation and could
> be the special 'out of budget' requests that Paul is mentioning below.
>
> What will happen in that case? I'm trying to avoid a situation where the
> Foundation will be forced to pick up the bills for any unplanned expenses.
> At present that cannot happen and chapters/projects are responsible not to
> go in the red.
>
> Fabio
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13 Oct 2015, at 8:18 p.m., Noreen Whysel <noreen.whysel at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> My experience with negative balances (Bolivia and Belfast so far) is that
> they often go negative when a charge is covered by Community Engagement
> funds. I believe that Alison records this in her processes, but it is not
> necessarily shown in the public documents: US/EU Chapter Funds PDF and
> US/EU Project Funds PDF. These documents show the expenses but don't show
> the Community Engagement credit.
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151013/4b9c9758/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list