[Owasp-board] [Governance] Stepping down from Project Reviews
johanna curiel curiel
johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Thu Sep 3 00:08:15 UTC 2015
He has already stated that he would be dismissed from the OWASP Board and
I would expect this outcome based on the evidence tendered in this matter
as part of proceeding at the upcoming OWASP Board Meeting i.e.
Christian, could you provide proof when "[Jim] has already stated that he
would be dismissed from the OWASP Board "?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Christian Heinrich <
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
> Jim supported the complaint against the OWASP Top Ten 2013 release but
> then "manipulated"
> of which I sent him several e-mails seeking an explanation this action
> which remain unanswered?
> Since the time of this amendment he then went on to state "I did indeed
> bring this up in the past but was largely outvoted by the board." within
> In addition, Jim had stated to me when we met in Sydney that he an ongoing
> issue with Jeff Williams since his employment at Aspect Security and hence
> his continued attacks against their flagship projects which have resulted
> in a significant loss of their reputation e.g. "*OWASP's ESAPI is no
> longer a flagship product for OWASP anymore: major development work on the
> library stagnated and the 2.1 release was just to fix a major CVE.* " to
> Can I please request that a formal inquiry be undertaken against Jim
> Manico? He has already stated that he would be dismissed from the OWASP
> Board and I would expect this outcome based on the evidence tendered in
> this matter as part of proceeding at the upcoming OWASP Board Meeting i.e.
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> This is a *very* serious manner. Manipulating reviews of projects I
>> manage would be grounds to have me dismissed from the board. If you are
>> seriously concerned that my involvement would lead ethical problems of that
>> nature, then I encourage you to talk to other board members and escalate
>> this issue. Corruption of that nature is very serious and would be a breach
>> of my fiduciary duty to the OWASP Foundation.
>> My main concern (and my sole reason for involvement) is that OWASP
>> presents its catalog of projects in a fair way. In the past, we held up
>> projects as "Flagship" that had very serious quality issues. I do not feel
>> that is the case any more.
>> Is there anything else you are concerned with while we are on the topic
>> of ethics and project review?
>> - Jim
> Christian Heinrich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board