[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Andrew van der Stock vanderaj at owasp.org
Mon Oct 19 00:13:08 UTC 2015


Josh: Yes
Jim: Yes
Tobias: Yes
Michael:
Matt:
Andrew: No
Fabio:

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> 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/20151019/af6cfd94/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list