[Owasp-board] Motion to approve Proposal 6

Matt Konda matt.konda at owasp.org
Wed Oct 21 11:30:55 UTC 2015


Full result is recorded here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Hk1A_-yDt40leZxhIt8Gg84BLWHGXbR1YKyxWv8Iw0/edit#gid=1838967326

I will summarize in the minutes of the next meeting so the decisions are
documented clearly through that process.

Matt


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Matt Konda <matt.konda at owasp.org> wrote:

> I'm a yes.
>
> I will record the result.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:11 AM, 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20151021/be1035fd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list