[Owasp-board] We've seized defeat from the jaws of victory. Again.
Tom Brennan - OWASP
tomb at owasp.org
Tue Apr 19 14:00:17 UTC 2016
Agree with Josh.
OWASP has efforts and when people care enough to work on them great things
I personally don't feel that we need to administrate any special program to
cater to any sex, color, religion, demographic, but rather content in our
technical community. If you have the mojo submit it you will likely bubble
up to selection 1) Person has the skills needed
2) person participates in or creates open-source OWASP project = auto-win.
If you really want to bring in a demographic for women it is rather simply
to reach out to our friends at organizations such as:
to ask for a speaker
Just like you would want to do if you were looking for any other segment in
the market category such as Veterans in Technology http://vet-tech.us/
..... although this is US centric...
But in summary if that is a GOAL of the foundation and we have a staff that
can make it part of event planning then your issue should be resolved.
Until then, all we can do is encourage EVERYONE to submit the CFP.
Another example, I am doing a event in NYC 5-October and the CFP has just
opened www.nymjcsc.org this event is comprised of multible professional
associations and shares the same goal of diversity so the trick is to reach
out to targetted topics/demographics/contacts and try to put together the
best program that we can do as volenteers.
In closing diversity makes a great event inline with our goals
GPG ID: DC6AA149 | Fingerprint: 12A6 9978 45BB 1562 C921 B228 BD0F D9C6
OWASP Foundation | www.owasp.org
Tel: (m) 973-506-9304
Need to book time with me to discuss an existing or a future project click
on my virtual calendar http://www.proactiverisk.com/brennan
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> For the record, LASCON 2015 had 6 out of 55 female presenters (11%). 2
> out of 8 of the Featured Speakers were female (25%). 1 out of the 3
> Keynotes were female (33%). I don't think it's fair to say that "it's
> clear because every conference organizational committee has in our history
> failed to achieve even 10% gender diversity for over a decade now".
> In Austin, we also have a woman Chapter Leader and several women who are
> active on our planning teams (chapter and conferences). Dale Carnegie
> wrote "Be hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise". Maybe,
> instead of dropping the hammer on those who we think are doing it wrong and
> expecting them to change their ways, we should be highlighting those who
> are setting a positive example for the community?
> I can tell you from my experience running AppSecUSA 2012 that very little
> was given to our planning team in the way of recommendations, expectations,
> connections, historical data, etc. We did what we did because it was what
> was deemed comfortable and attainable for our planning team. With the
> addition of Laura to our staff since then, I would expect a much higher
> level of guidance on best practices and expectations coming from the
> Foundation as well as the resources to back that up. If expectations has
> been set for the conference planners, and they are failing to meet those
> expectations, then I agree that the Board needs to take swift and decisive
> actions to remedy the situation. That said, I am unaware of any such
> mandates that have come down from the Foundation which leads me to believe
> that, devoid of any requirements, this is a situation where, right or
> wrong, speaker diversity slipped the minds of the conference planners. We
> don't have to be dicks about it by removing speakers and whatnot after
> announcements have been made. If you truly believe that it is our fault,
> then punishing the conference planners and selected speakers for our
> shortcomings will only upset people. Bring it to their attention and allow
> them to find a solution for this issue. If they cannot or do not, then we
> move forward and knowing that may not be a team we want to award the
> conference to in the future. For now, I'd suggest that we focus on putting
> a process in place to either do blind selection or require diversity for
> planning going forward. Once a firm policy has been established and people
> are aware of what is expected of them, then naiveity is no longer an excuse.
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
>> The lack of diversity sits squarely the Board’s shoulders for not putting
>> in place requirements on organizers to meet our organizational mission, and
>> it’s our fault for not helping the organizers with active diversity
>> programs such as reaching out to WIA programs, it’s our fault that we
>> haven’t made it clear that 0 women keynotes is not acceptable, and it’s our
>> fault that this keeps on happening, and in fact has happened for as long as
>> we’ve run conferences.
>> We as a Board must address our non-existent governance over these issues,
>> and build out our capability to attract submissions from diverse
>> communities, and to ensure these under represented communities have
>> assistance to submit high quality submissions and actually get an
>> opportunity to present at a large conference.
>> The current situation is not any one organizational committees fault, and
>> it’s clear because every conference organizational committee has in our
>> history failed to achieve even 10% gender diversity for over a decade now,
>> it’s 100% not their fault.
>> It’s our fault. We have to fix this. And we can’t do it by saying the
>> status quo is okay. Let’s address this in the next Board meeting. If you
>> have ideas on improving the motion so we can get some real change,
>> particularly for 2017, let’s get them in there.
>> On 19 Apr 2016, at 04:40, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> I understand why you are concerned and upset over this issue.
>> Please be cognizant that the EU PC committee is full of dedicated
>> volunteers. Please avoid being accusatory and attacking when approaching
>> the EU committee over this. There is already bad blood in the water and I
>> hope someone aims to diffuse this, not stoke even more anger over this.
>> Proceed gently.
>> On 4/18/16 4:44 AM, Matt Konda wrote:
>> I agree that this is unacceptable.
>> For additional background, I specifically reached out to the EU
>> conference organizers about their selection committee demographics and the
>> response was chilling. I got a message saying that my note was unhelpful
>> and that WIA should take care of it.
>> I will go through your proposal and hope to be able to help us take some
>> action. I'm not sure what makes sense yet, but I am really glad that you
>> are raising this and you have my full support in actively working to fix
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Andrew van der Stock <
>> <vanderaj at owasp.org>vanderaj at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Who can tell me which organization’s US conference organizers had four
>>> keynotes to fill and managed to fill them with all one gender?
>>> WTF is wrong with our processes that this CONTINUES TO HAPPEN?
>>> So white hot angry right now.
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> 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
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
The information contained in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to the message, permanently delete it from your
computer and destroy any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board