[Owasp-board] Motion to approve proposal 2

Paul Ritchie paul.ritchie at owasp.org
Wed Oct 14 15:48:20 UTC 2015


Hello Fabio, All:

Under this specific scenario, again...no, I think that is a problem for the
foundation.  How would the Foundation handle this uncertainty times many
chapters & many events?

Sometimes it might be the $200 and sometimes it could be $500 overage.

Today, we handle this surprises on an individual basis.     But to put a
'Policy' in place that guarantees Foundation payment on any surprise or
unauthorized overspending.....is no incentive for a Leader to stick to the
spending limit.  right?

How about modifying Proposal #2 text to aim the Leaders at seeking
pre-approval, using normal process for any anticipated overspending.

Proposal 2: 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 pre-approval
following current Community Engagement and Project Funding guidelines.

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


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:

> Paul
>
> I believe a typical example of this is the following:
>
> Chapter X wants to organise an event and they budget USD500 for
> food/drinks. They have those funds in their account so the event is
> approved.
>
> Then due to ‘increased attendance’ the food/drinks expenses go over the
> USD500 and now the bill comes at USD700.
>
> The current process dictates that those extra USD200 shall be accounted by
> the chapter.
>
> The new proposal is saying.. OWASP Foundation will cover that difference.
>
> Are we OK with this?
>
> Fabio Cerullo
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> https://www.owasp.org
>
> On 14 Oct 2015, at 12:58 a.m., 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151014/b3ac6d0a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list