[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Fri Oct 16 22:24:51 UTC 2015

Update:
As operational effectiveness was my main worry and Paul just sent an 
email stating that he does not see any problems from our team on this 
item, I hereby change my vote to "Yes." (in support of the posted text).

Best regards, Tobias

On 17/10/15 00:13, Tobias wrote:
> 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/20151017/8d5939db/attachment-0001.html>