[Owasp-board] MOTION: Allocate up to $500 to Chapters and Projects with balances less than $500

Tony Turner tony.turner at owasp.org
Thu Nov 10 14:29:38 UTC 2016


I'm not arguing for giving money to inactive chapters. I agree thats a poor
use of OWASP funds. The outliers I speak of are those chapters that have
huge balances from running an OWASP conference or live in a location where
they have a lot of Corporate Sponsors. Those huge balances when averaged
against the rest of the chapters creates an illusion where chapters have
money when it fact they do not.

I understand your point about utilizing the CEF or another fund for this
purpose instead of a recurring award and that is a legitimate stance. I
just think the logic you've presented in your arguments with statements
like "Chapters currently have close enough to $760k.." presents a case that
is misleading. As you stated below while I was typing this, Orlando is down
to $26. We take advantage of CEF once or twice a year, but we meet monthly
or sometimes more than monthly with expenditures every meeting, plus
meetup.com fees that I wind up eating the cost of frequently. We are taking
advantage of this model and currently have a hard time sustaining chapter
growth. Yes, next year co-hosting AppSec USA with the Tampa chapter will do
great things for both of our chapters. But not everyone can do this, and
I'm advocating for those people.

What we need is a model where chapters who spend can claim a recurring
amount, $250, $500, whatever up to that defined threshold. Having to go
back to the well and request funds for every single event or purpose is an
administrative headache that could be avoided. As long as funds are being
spent towards the OWASP mission in an approved manner I don't see an issue.
The problem, and you are well aware, is the chapters that do NOT spend.
Can't we drive the selection process based on spend?

I'd also like to point out that if chapters you gave money to previously
did not spend it, then you would not be giving them anything for this
initiative since they'd still be at a $500 balance. Only new chapters or
ones that actually used their money would receive, correct? If what you say
is true about chapter spending, the spend for 2017 should be much lower
than 2016 I would think. Is that $38,848 what was spent last year or
projected spend for this motion?



On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Tony,
>
> The outliers here *are* the beneficiaries of this motion. I'm not sure of
> your point here; I am all for chapters spending the funds they have or
> raise.
>
> I'd rather any new additional funding for chapters to be from an
> non-recurring activity model, where chapters of any size or funding base
> can access funds to do something great for their local or regional area if
> they have a plan and apply for funding. This makes zero assumptions about
> the chapter's current financial health, size, paid membership, local
> sponsorship, location, or anything other than that they want to do
> something for their chapter. This is fairer, and it means active leaders
> doing stuff get mission funds for mission work.
>
> Simply giving funds to probably inactive chapters or small regional
> chapters similar to where I live - where it's entirely possible to hold
> meetings for free - simply is not a good use of OWASPs funds at this point,
> as once it's earmarked, it's not able to be spent on other activities due
> to convention since this funding experiment was first conceived in 2013.
> The funds currently sit in general revenue until spent, and it's difficult
> for our accounting staff to get a specific chapter balance as it's created
> from month on month cumulative accrual basis, and not separate accounts. We
> have a month end report, which is where the Scorecard is derived.
>
> thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:49 AM Tony Turner <tony.turner at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe these metrics would be more meaningful once you remove the
>> outliers. Comparing revenue opps for a rural chapter to one capable of
>> running a major conference is a really unfair comparison and hugely skews
>> those numbers. Additionally, there are more chapters than opportunities to
>> support such events, and sponsors tend to be focused on certain geographies
>> like Bay Area, Boston, etc in the US. Likewise, comparing active to
>> nonactive chapters and their spending patterns is also misleading. What if
>> we keep this motion on the table but re-evaluate what constitutes an
>> "active" chapter from a funding perspective? Stop focusing on the folks
>> with huge pots of unspent money when discussing chapter financial health
>> (OK with redistribution) but stop pretending like everyone else is in the
>> same financial situation. It's just not accurate.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:13 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> >>Until we get a handle on chapter balances and get spending moving,
>> it's not a good use of OWASP's already limited operational funds. Putting
>> another $38,848 into 102 chapters, some of whom need $0.03 and some of whom
>> need $497, without understanding if they have any plans to spend the funds
>> is simply unwise.
>>
>> +Andrew
>>
>> Thats the reason why I asked during the OWASP meeting a report regarding
>> this part.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Josh,
>>
>> We did it last year as a 1 time thing, and 72 of those we gave an extra
>> $500 to didn't use it ($18k), and the rest of the chapters with low funds
>> (102 of them) didn't spend very much at all, about $12k in total, or about
>> $112 on average per chapter.
>>
>> Until we get a handle on chapter balances and get spending moving, it's
>> not a good use of OWASP's already limited operational funds. Putting
>> another $38,848 into 102 chapters, some of whom need $0.03 and some of whom
>> need $497, without understanding if they have any plans to spend the funds
>> is simply unwise.
>>
>> Chapters currently have close enough to $760k, or approximately 60% of
>> our funds on hand, when we use $1.2m per year to run our conferences and
>> the Foundation, and when we have a small unbudgeted profit this year, I
>> can't in good faith suggest this goes through, as it will come at the
>> expense of doing something else, such as the Zap Bug Bounty or similar.
>>
>> If a chapter without funds needs funding, I'm happy to consider them
>> applying (before an expense is spent) from the CEF, possibly adding say
>> $20-30k to the CEF for this purpose, especially if they plan to hold a
>> meeting or do an event, but simply to give all chapters with low balances
>> more money is not a good use of our funds. It just sits there. Tiffany can
>> be the gate keeper and encourage chapters who need a bit more funding than
>> they have to apply for something good. That way, even if a chapter has more
>> than $500, they can access this additional funding if they want to a local
>> event that might cost say $2k to put on. If we do it your way, that $2k
>> expense just can't happen as there's no spare cash in the CEF if it's being
>> used correctly.
>>
>> We're going to get slapped if we don't either invest it for future
>> mission objectives, or get that money moving on mission related spending.
>> We are a non-profit organisation, and that means not making a profit -
>> either small profits every year, investing in mission related activities,
>> or spending on mission related activities. Yes, chapters are a key mission,
>> but they have plenty of ways of obtaining funds as amply demonstrated in
>> the stunning $260k growth in their balances this year once you take away
>> the one time $500 add we did last year.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:11 AM Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps Tiffany or one of the other staff can get you this information.
>> The best I have is the "Donation Scoreboard" here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/11acTOmtmBGq6-
>> 5CIGsjlEByU8POSGqda0r23VNnhEGQ/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&output=html
>>
>> This is not just chapters, but projects as well.  And it's impact is on
>> the smaller chapters and projects who do not have funding or the means to
>> raise funds themselves.  Think of it as "seed money" to help them get
>> started and grow.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> HI Board
>>
>> Would it be possible to have an overview of the which chapters received
>> the USD500 this year and what is their \ their actual saldo , including
>> which chapters are active of inactive?
>>
>> This can provide us an idea on the impact of this initiative with regards
>> chapters funding
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Board,
>>
>> On October 14, 2015, the Board passed the following motion:
>>
>> Motion: P3 - All accounts belonging to active chapters and projects, as
>> defined in the Chapter and Project Handbooks respectively, with balances
>> less than $500, will be brought to $500 beginning January 1, 2016 as long
>> as there are at least two active leaders at that time.
>>
>> This motion served two purposes.  First, it was meant to empower OWASP's
>> chapters and projects by giving them funding to do the things they want to
>> do in order to support our mission.  Second, it was meant to eliminate the
>> contention around the "haves" and "have nots".  I believe that we were
>> successful in accomplishing both of these goals.  Thus, I propose the
>> following motion:
>>
>> *All accounts belonging to active chapters and projects, as defined in
>> the Chapter and Project Handbooks respectively, with balances less than
>> $500, will be brought to $500 beginning January 1, 2017 as long as there
>> are at least two active leaders at that time.*
>>
>> We can discuss at a later point whether we would want to potentially
>> motion this as an annual allocation, but for now I just want to make sure
>> Tiffany has the vote she needs to know how to move forward.  Thank you.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>


-- 
Tony Turner
OWASP Orlando Chapter Founder/Co-Leader
WAFEC Project Leader
STING Game Project Leader
tony.turner at owasp.org
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Orlando
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20161110/59607c50/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list