[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Fri Oct 16 22:13:54 UTC 2015


Josh,

I am surprised that you see a problem of waiting for 3 days to give 
people the chance to raise their points.
I recognise that you are not friendly to the amendment, therefore we 
shall resolve your motion first.

I hereby vote "No".
(As I said I am friendly to the principle, but I think that my alternate 
proposal text is more useful. And I am sorry that you feel it would be 
splitting hairs and harmful. Therefore, I vote "No" now and hope we can 
use the other proposal text for a motion after this vote.)

Best regards, Tobias


Ps.: after this vote is closed we can then talk about my proposal as a 
new item:
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. Our operations team will, based on the list of filed approved 
expenses, update the list of recommended expenses at least once every 
three months with new classes of expenses as they arise. If a chapter or 
project has an account balance which covers that expense in full, then 
items identical to the ones on the pre-approved list should be 
considered pre-approved for spending.



On 16/10/15 23:30, Josh Sokol wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> 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 
> <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2015-October/016223.html> on 
> 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.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org 
> <mailto:tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>     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/20151017/de26fcab/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list