[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6
josh.sokol at owasp.org
Fri Oct 16 21:30:39 UTC 2015
The full proposal has been under discussion since I originally sent it on
9/24. While officially motioned and seconded at the OWASP Board Meeting on
9/25, you pulled "Parliamentary Procedure" to table it for further
discussion. Jim resurrected that discussion immediately after and while
much of that fell into a blackhole due to the mailing list issues, I took
the feedback for this specific initiative and copied it into a separate
discussion thread here
10/9. So, for you to tell me that we require three additional days, when
we have already had just short of a month worth of discussion already, I'm
not sure I understand. If we were making progress, then that would be one
thing, but as you stated in the meeting, you very clearly feel like this
proposal is extra effort (I do not) and that we should continue to utilize
the same broken process that we have in the past.
In all fairness here, I made the motion on 10/13 (3 days ago) and it was
seconded by Jim on 10/13 (3 days ago). I stated that unless there was
anything new to add, then I voted "Yes". Jim voted "Yes" as well. You
responded with "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." It was not
discussed at the Board meeting so my motion shall resume. There has been
almost a month worth of time for comments on this. Unless you have an
alternative wording to propose instead, then the discussion has been had
and we need to vote.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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
>>> 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".
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>>> I second this motion.
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> 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.
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board