[Owasp-board] How to define active leader?
fcerullo at owasp.org
Wed Oct 14 23:33:50 UTC 2015
In terms of defining an 'active leader' would it make sense to have the following requirements:
- must be responsive to inquiries.
- must be an owasp paid/honorary member.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 12 Oct 2015, at 2:43 p.m., Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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.
>> 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:
>>>> 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?
>>>> Fabio Cerullo
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board