[Owasp-board] We need to Lead definition of Active Leader
Jim Manico
jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon Oct 19 15:54:04 UTC 2015
Perfect. Thanks for taking this on, Noreen. Happy Monday!
Aloha,
Jim
On 10/19/15 5:51 PM, Noreen Whysel wrote:
> Here are the links to these chapters:
>
> Active Chapter Definition:
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Chapter_Handbook/Chapter_2:_Mandatory_Chapter_Rules
>
> Active Chapter Leader Definition:
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Chapter_Handbook/Chapter_5:_Governance
>
> The definitions could go before the Contact Us section here:
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Chapter_Handbook/Chapter_1:_Handbook_Overview
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Noreen Whysel
> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org <mailto:noreen.whysel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> I have added my definition of Active Chapter to the lead paragraph
> of Chapter 2 of the Chapter Leader Handbook.
>
> I have added the definition of an Active Leader to the first
> bullet under 5.1 Leadership in Chapter 5 of the Chapter Leader
> Handbook.
>
> Any references to Active Chapter or Active Chapter Leader should
> link to these definitions.
>
> Alternatively (or in addition), we could put a section on
> Definitions in Chapter 1: Handbook Overview.
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Noreen Whysel
> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org <mailto:noreen.whysel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> Ok. Just a clarification. Since chapter leaders can't update
> SF it can't be part of the requirement. Wiki page and Mailman
> admin is all they need.
>
> ;)
>
> Noreen Whysel
> Community Manager
> OWASP Foundation
>
> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Paul Ritchie
> <paul.ritchie at owasp.org <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, good feedback.
>>
>> Notice locations - In addition to buried in handbook, I think
>> the second highest priority would be to highlight that
>> definition on a chapter homepage. More then that is to
>> many places.
>>
>> 2 meetings before $500....No, I was just trying to stimulate
>> the thought process. Board did comment that they thought a
>> first meeting would be needed anyway to generate a second leader.
>> So....if you and want to make this decision NOW....I'm OK
>> with 1) complete all your 'normal' new chapter paperwork,
>> plus 2) must have a second leader officially named on wiki
>> and SF database.
>>
>> 3. Re Ghana - I will expect all staff to 'hold the line'
>> $500 is designed as an incentive to "be active" 'get shared'
>> leadership and 'be responsive. If there is no
>> update....there is no money. If he is responsive and meets
>> requirements....wow = incentive money.
>> I imagine there may be several of these....either not
>> responsive, or can't find that 2nd leader.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
>> OWASP Executive Director
>> paul.ritchie at owasp.org <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Noreen Whysel OWASP
>> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org <mailto:noreen.whysel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Q1 chapter handbook under governance chapter only.
>> Everywhere else we mention active leaders can link to
>> that section but o don't think it is wise to have it all
>> over the place in case it changes over time. Projects
>> handbook probably has a place that makes sense where it
>> discusses leaders.
>>
>> Implementation:
>> -notice to leader list and next news flash
>> -email alert to all leaders (same list as the monthly
>> finding announcement) and include info on how to make
>> sure all your leaders are on the Owasp-leaders list by
>> adding them to Mailman admin field.
>> -edit new leader welcome and Chapter Active? Templates on SF.
>> -personal email to any leader who has discussed upcoming
>> events or funding requirements.
>> -probably should do a joint hangout with Tobias and a
>> 24/7 Podcast to discuss the proposals and what it means
>> for chapter and project leaders when the votes are complete.
>>
>> Q2 So chapters would be required to go out of pocket or
>> find a local sponsor for two meetings before they can get
>> funding? Is this a new addition that the board came up
>> with or just something we are knocking around on staff? I
>> think this would be prohibitive in some areas. It's a bit
>> Catch 22. I fear that a sponsor would want to know that a
>> chapter is a going concern before putting out funds. At
>> the same time a new chapter leader is only going to put
>> himself out of he knows he has foundation funding to host
>> a successful meeting and draw attendance.
>>
>> Btw at present Ghana would not qualify for funding
>> because he hasn't updated the wiki in two years. I have
>> told him that he needs to do it but his response is sort
>> of Yeah, Yeah or no response. That worries me
>> particularly since he is asking me to help find speakers.
>>
>> Noreen Whysel
>> Community Manager
>> OWASP Foundation
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Paul Ritchie
>> <paul.ritchie at owasp.org <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi....OK, if thats the jist of it and it covers the
>>> Johanna comments per Josh's email...that I'm good.
>>>
>>> The next step is cutting and pasting this into our
>>> 'official communication' about these changes to the
>>> community. Sharing that draft implementation plan at
>>> least internally with staff, getting consensus on
>>> timeline and then launching.
>>>
>>> A few, like proposal #4 allow the $500 to be allocated
>>> at any NEW Chapter, _effective immediately_, once it
>>> completes all its new chapter tasks and has 2 Active
>>> leaders.
>>>
>>> Q1 Have you considered where and when you would post
>>> this new information on the wiki? Chapter handbook is
>>> fine, but other locations....and then your timeline to
>>> complete, ie. how will you implement? is the basis of
>>> my question.
>>>
>>> Q2..Must a new Chapter hold its first meeting, or
>>> perhaps 2 meetings to qualify for the "new chapter funds?
>>> Or, for proposal #4, is our implementation plan to
>>> ensure they meet the minimum requirement of 2 leaders
>>> defined, and then all normal new Chapter information
>>> documented in Wiki and Sales force...without needing a
>>> requirement for a 1st meeting.
>>>
>>> Net net Noreen, I will be documenting and drafting up
>>> the implementation project on the budgeting proposals,
>>>
>>> I was looking to have you lead the implementation of the
>>> new chapter funding communication & rules...aligned with
>>> Claudia re: new projects.
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm totally open to more ideas if you have
>>> some other ideas on How best to define & communicate
>>> 'what was just approved' and how we will implement? It
>>> just needs to get done and I want to confirm owners for
>>> each portion of work effort.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
>>> OWASP Executive Director
>>> paul.ritchie at owasp.org <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Noreen Whysel OWASP
>>> <noreen.whysel at owasp.org
>>> <mailto:noreen.whysel at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My impression is that the board is satisfied with my
>>> definition of an active leader. Is there something
>>> missing from your POV from these two requirements:
>>>
>>> -Must have contact information clearly accessible
>>> from chapter/project/initiative page.
>>> -Must be responsive to inquiries (i.e. Reply within
>>> 7 business days)
>>>
>>> Noreen Whysel
>>> Community Manager
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Paul Ritchie
>>> <paul.ritchie at owasp.org
>>> <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Noreen - I see your email below but all my
>>>> impressions are that the BoD is expected us on
>>>> Staff to "lead" this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Fabio isn't going to do it....and since 'we' will
>>>> be implementing and answering all chapter level
>>>> questions, than WE , and by functional
>>>> responsibility....You, are the one to summarize
>>>> responses and propose final definition of Active
>>>> Leader.
>>>>
>>>> Can you do that Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
>>>> Basically send out the preferred definition, as a
>>>> draft, that would allow you or me to make a pretty
>>>> clear decision if the leader is Active...with a
>>>> minimum of potential dispute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Noreen Whysel/
>>>> /5:16 am (1 day ago)/
>>>> /to Fabio, OWASP /
>>>> /I have given my suggestions. When you have agreed
>>>> on a final definition I will incorporate it into
>>>> the Chapter Leader Handbook. /
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /It is also important to consider Claudia and
>>>> Johanna's definition of an active project and
>>>> active project leader. I presume it is similar, ie,
>>>> meets minimum requirements/responsive, but not sure
>>>> if different levels of projects would have
>>>> different requirements./
>>>> /Noreen /
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
>>>> OWASP Executive Director
>>>> paul.ritchie at owasp.org <mailto:paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
>>>> BAsic
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
--
Jim Manico
Global Board Member
OWASP Foundation
https://www.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151019/bb2f751b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Owasp-board
mailing list