[Owasp-board] Waspy is it a serious award?

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Aug 15 19:41:37 UTC 2016


Thank you Josh.

Indeed, lets see if we can setup a committee for this purpose and define a
better award.

@Eoin: let me know you want to join the committee. I'll see if we can set a
draft plan/proposal we can discuss with the community ;-)



On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> Personally, I would rather see WASPYs driven by a group of our leaders
> rather than by the OWASP Board.  This would probably be another great use
> of the Committees 2.0 framework and it sounds like Johanna and Eoin would
> be huge assets to such a team.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> >>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
>> nomination.
>>
>> 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:
>>>
>>> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2014-August/014474.html
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>> @eoinkeary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johanna Curiel
>> OWASP Volunteer
>>
>
>


-- 
Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20160815/7ffd192b/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list