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

Tiffany Long tiffany.long at owasp.org
Thu Nov 24 00:00:47 UTC 2016


Hello Board,

I am following up to see if there is an action item that Matt, Claudia, or
I can present at the board meeting.  Perhaps rather than an action item,
you have a few open ended questions that we can explore for you  and
present?

If you let us know by early Monday morning we can commit time to this and
help enrich the discussion.

Best,
Tiffany

Tiffany Long
Community Manager

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone, Why couldn't the excess funds be placed in a "grantmaking"
> fund that would send out annual RFPs, grant guidelines, review grant
> proposals from interested chapters & projects, and award them annually at
> AppSecUSA, or some other annual grants award schedule? In the interim,
> couldn't the "grantmaking" fund be invested in a way to provide some
> growth, while organizing, administrating, and processing the grants awards,
> increasing the grantmaking fund over time? This would be an incentive for
> all chapters and projects to support the global grantmaking processes.
> Couldn't local chapters with excess funds also offer their own grantmaking
> efforts? Additionally, I think that OWASP could put together a
> "grantwriting" team to submit grant proposals to external opportunities, as
> well. In any case, I'm happy to help, assist putting something like this
> together if there is any interest. Cheers, Bev
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Tony that the numbers that you're throwing out, Andrew, are
>> very misleading.  For starters, I want to clarify that this motion (and the
>> one last year) is for both Chapters and Projects, but your analysis only
>> includes Chapters.  Second, I want to re-iterate what Tony said which is
>> that for any Chapter or Project who didn't spend anything, there is NO
>> additional burden on the Foundation.  The money is already there.  I count
>> a total of 152 of our Chapters and 42 Projects (in the current Donation
>> Scoreboard) that this will have no effect on whatsoever.  For the other
>> remaining 102 Chapters and 17 Projects in the Donation Scoreboard, the cost
>> is approximately $44k.  You're right that some of that $44k might go
>> unspent, but the goal here is empowerment to ensure that everyone at OWASP,
>> even if they can't get sponsors or run a conference, has the ability to
>> bootstrap the things that are important to them.  This funding last year
>> eliminated the contention around the "haves" and "have nots" and removed
>> the red tape around having to request money from the Foundation to do
>> things X, Y, and Z.  Let's be clear.  This money goes to support 3 groups:
>>
>> 1) The Chapters and Projects who are just getting started (or re-started)
>> and could really use a boost.
>>
>> 2) The Chapters and Projects who are spending down their funds and need
>> more to keep going.
>>
>> 3) The Chapters and Projects who do not have an easy way to get
>> sponsorships or run events.
>>
>> This ~$44k is a very small price to pay for happiness and innovation
>> amongst our community.
>>
>> Lastly, I'd urge you to stop throwing out the "Chapters have close enough
>> to $760k" argument.  I've done the math on it numerous times (
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GhYNDmDmkxr1xo18e9o
>> 6rj9YEILOEJl9KjDBTU-wQ1o/edit?usp=sharing) and six of our Chapters
>> account for over 47% of that number.  SIX.  All who hosted a Global AppSec
>> event.  There are 14 chapters who hosted one of these events, in total, and
>> they account for 63% of the funds.  If the problem is that those chapters
>> aren't spending, let's focus on how to get them to spend.  Instead, you
>> want to penalize those who have done nothing wrong because of it.
>>
>> ~josh
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tony Turner <tony.turner at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/11acTOmtmBGq6-5CI
>>>>> GsjlEByU8POSGqda0r23VNnhEGQ/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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20161123/2fa603df/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list