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

Tiffany Long tiffany.long at owasp.org
Mon Aug 15 22:35:37 UTC 2016


Hello Everybody,

I am excited about this conversation because it gives me a great
opportunity to discuss the WASPY awards and their social function in the
OWASP Community.

The WASPYs were originally intended to honor all of the invisible work that
goes into running the OWASP community.  The idea is that our leaders would
nominate exceptional volunteers who make the Chapters, Projects, or
Community function and that all of our community could nominate their peers
for work that is not always visible to the masses or even the leaders.
This type of public acknowledgement has long been known to keep volunteer
organizations energized.  When it functions, this mechanism performs a
couple of important social functions which support community cohesion.

The WASPYs are clearly not performing at their best right now, but they ARE
still performing their function.  The most effective ways to help them
perform better are to help promote leadership buy-in as nominators rather
than using the tool as a reward for leadership or ignoring it.  This is a
great tool that every project and chapter leader should be utilizing.

Let’s discuss the WASPYs as they exist now for example.  Anyone (even
non-members) can nominate a person to win the award which is divided into
to 4 well defined categories.  Every aspect of the award is maintained on
the WASPY page
<https://tracking.cirrusinsight.com/c68f55c3-f18b-48d4-ab9f-dd385b757b4c/owasp-org-index-php-waspy-awards-2016>,
Kelly has done an amazing job of ensuring the transparency of the award on
this page from start to finish. Community members then nominate anyone they
feel meets the criteria by and is required to include a short statement on
why they support their nominee for any particular category.  This blurb is
then what the community is asked to judge on.

Because the WASPY’s are a good faith endeavor we do not vet the candidates
separately. Additionally the invisible work people put into OWASP is often
impossible to measure through impartial, established metrics.  Therefore,
rather than attempt to unfairly measure the impossible, we allow the
nominators to describe the deeds of the nominees.  This is also why we do
not edit (other than the occasional spelling error) the blurbs. This is the
nominator’s chance to sell their candidate and we do not put restrictions
or interfere.

It is clear that this year their is slightly less participation than last
year, but as a chart of all nominations for the history of the award will
show you, this is not by much.  The figure is even closer when you take
into account that many of the 2015 nominees were submitted in large groups
(this is not reflected in the chart below).
In this case, I would say that the WASPYs are functioning fairly okay.
They should be tweaked rather than overhauled.  For instance, we should
engage in an education campaign to help our leaders understand how to best
use the WASPYs as a tool.  Perhaps we should think about changing the
reward for the winner.  We should definitely change the way we talk about
them. A second step would be to perhaps clarify why the blurb is
important.  Perhaps we can explore how winners are selected for future
WASPYs.

In the end, there are a number of challenges to tackle, the WASPY’s need a
tweaking, not a complete reconfiguring.
Best,
Tiffany

Tiffany Long
Community Manager

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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/20160815/9f47ebc3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list