[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Mon Oct 19 16:11:08 UTC 2015


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

We have 4 yes, 2 no, and 1 not voted (Matt).  The motion carries.  Matt,
would you like to record a vote for the record?

~josh

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:

> I have concerns regarding abuse of this proposal so vote NO.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fabio Cerullo
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> https://www.owasp.org
>
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 4:54 p.m., Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Yes from me
>
> Josh: Yes
> Jim: Yes
> Tobias: Yes
> Michael: yes
> Matt:
> Andrew: No
> Fabio:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151019/8235dcdd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list