[Owasp-board] Motion to approve proposal 2

Matt Konda matt.konda at owasp.org
Wed Oct 14 03:53:37 UTC 2015


I believe there were no vote changes in this thread.  Please let me know if
I missed something.

Matt


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/adabb97e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list