[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Fri Oct 16 21:15:51 UTC 2015


Josh,

we see eye to eye. We may not be of the same opinion. ;-)

But frankly at this moment, this is not my problem.
I simply noted that during the meeting we did run out of discussion time 
and there was the proposal to table this item for raising questions or 
discussion instead of voting on it. That was accepted with no objection. 
Therefore, like to understand whether there is further need for 
discussion before I call for a vote. I think your email calling for a 
vote is noted and we should give people a chance to raise their 
questions or discuss before we initiate the vote. As during the board 
meeting a timeline of 3 days was mentioned.

Therefore I note your request to re-open the motion. I appreciate that 
it has been seconded.
By who to remember me for the record?
I suggest to give us three days to raise questions or discuss unless all 
members are good to vote immediately.

Best regards, Tobias


On 16/10/15 22:55, Josh Sokol wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> 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 yours.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             I second this motion.
>>>>
>>>>             --
>>>>             Jim Manico
>>>>             Global Board Member
>>>>             OWASP Foundation
>>>>             https://www.owasp.org <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 <mailto: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
>>>>>             <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>>>>             https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Owasp-board mailing list
>>>         Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org  <mailto: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/20151016/f4c8826c/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list