[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Sat Oct 17 00:15:01 UTC 2015


Josh: Yes
Jim: Yes
Tobias: Yes
Michael:
Matt:
Andrew:
Fabio:
On Oct 16, 2015 5:24 PM, "Tobias" <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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/ffc60aaa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list