[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Tobias Gondrom tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Mon Oct 19 16:44:07 UTC 2015


Josh, Matt, all, 
please let us record all votes. 
This is an evote not a normal one during a meeting.
Therefore we shall record all votes and technically people are open to change their vote based on arguments brought forward until the vote closes.
Thanks.
Tobias


On October 19, 2015 6:11:08 PM GMT+02:00, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Owasp-board mailing list
>Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151019/6bf738d2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list