[Owasp-board] Waspy is it a serious award?
johanna curiel curiel
johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Aug 15 18:55:19 UTC 2016
>>Tiffany can help to make the WASPY results more meaningful.
We can start by defining what exactly is the WASPY award for:
- Create a survey and ask the community how to define and award that
fits OWASP spirit and ideology
- Create Clear categories
- A more transparent nomination and vetting process
I also think that if only the paid members can nominate & vote, this does
not represent a 'community' vote. This should be discussed.
It is clear that every year there has been more lack of participation in
the nomination and voting process and every year this awards gets weird
with unpredictable changes between categories and regions.
Some better instructions should be provided regarding the conditions for
The board should set this item in the agenda to be discussed. My suggestion
is that Tiffany can help define a draft for a better process but this
should definitely be discussed with paying members and the OWASP community
in general. Once there is a clear proposal, then the Board as the final
responsible, should take a decision.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> There was a similar thread back in August 2014. I wrote up my thoughts on
> this topic here:
> I see contributions from both Eoin and Johanna in that thread as well.
> Unfortunately, I don't think anything has changed at this point, but
> hopefully Tiffany can help to make the WASPY results more meaningful.
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Eoin: Did you get the 'physical' award last year?' I wasn't in appsec us
>> so I was awaiting to being sent.
>> Mine never arrived😁😭
>> And, apart from a physical award, what else do people actually win?
>> Vetting process... is there something wrong with the description for
>> those categories?
>> Who is making the clear decisions regarding this vetting process or
>> better said: is there even a process?
>> For those people nominated multiple times I see that the description
>> provided quite fits the category and reason for nomination.
>> last year was worse, some people description and reason was empty.😬
>> And btw this year, don't we have 'per region' awards?
>> Why are things change from one moment to another without being discussed
>> at all with the community or at least the paying members who are the only
>> ones that can actually vote...?
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Folks I won this last year and have been nominated this year "good for
>>> me" but the quality of the nominations, is it vetted at all??
>>> I'm happy to be removed from the nominees list btw this is not any
>>> scheme, or ploy etc..
>>> Some people have been nominated for various things but have the claims
>>> been verified by 1/2 third parties?
>>> Some nominations are "cut and paste" for all categories? Seriously? Yes!
>>> Different catagories but the same text for each?? Make sense?
>>> I could technically nominate a fictional person I bet with no problems :)
>>> Just curious about the vetting process, is all.
>>> (Assuming this email shall be ignored 😀)
>>> All the best!!
>>> Eoin Keary
>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> Johanna Curiel
>> OWASP Volunteer
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board