[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Fri Oct 16 20:55:13 UTC 2015


It is clear that we do not see eye-to-eye on how this process should work.
This discussion has already consumed much of two Board meetings already,
has been had offline as well, and it's time to move forward.  No additional
discussion is going to convince me otherwise at this point, and it appears
likewise, so in light of this we follow our process.  I would merely remind
you that Paul has already voiced that he believes there are sufficient
controls in place that this would not be an issue.  The motion has been
made and seconded.  Two votes have been cast in favor.  Please provide


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

> Josh,
> we did not table this item during the meeting for the purpose to go
> directly to voting. Otherwise we could have done so immediately. My
> understanding was that more discussion was needed on this at our next
> meeting in 3 weeks.
> Best regards, Tobias
> On 16/10/15 21:50, Josh Sokol wrote:
> Since this item was tabled and not voted on at the Board meeting, since
> there does not seem to be a unanimous consensus on how this proposal should
> work, and since the motion has already been made and seconded (with two
> votes in favor), I would ask that all Board members record their votes in
> this e-mail thread.  Thank you.
> ~josh
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I can not see a point in voting now via email, if the next board meeting
>> is within a day.
>> This is a waste of time.
>> Best regards, Tobias
>> Ps.: Even though I agree with the overall idea, I feel like several
>> concerns on this have been ignored resulting in a bad proposal. I will
>> likely need to vote no and motion for an alternative text.
>> On 14/10/15 03:30, Jim Manico wrote:
>> I vote yes.
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> https://www.owasp.org
>> Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!
>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 3:06 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I believe that we've already had the discussion.  Unless there is
>> anything new that someone would like to add, I would like to request a
>> vote.  I will vote "Yes".
>> ~josh
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> I second this motion.
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>> Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!
>>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> I would like to motion that we approve Proposal 6 of the funding
>>> proposal presented at the last Board meeting:
>>> If a request for funding has been approved for one chapter or project,
>>> then it can be considered an acceptable expense for all chapters or
>>> projects.  If they have an account balance which covers that expense in
>>> full, then they should be considered pre-approved for spending.
>>> Second?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151016/c82a0596/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list