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

Eoin Keary eoin.keary at owasp.org
Mon Aug 15 20:50:49 UTC 2016


Ok I'm happy to help.
Sign me up 

Eoin Keary
OWASP Volunteer
@eoinkeary



> On 15 Aug 2016, at 20:41, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
> 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/f5b1bb89/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list