[Owasp-board] Budget for FY17
Tom Brennan - OWASP
tomb at owasp.org
Wed Sep 7 16:59:48 UTC 2016
Also like the pie idea with some questions..
Andrew do you support allowing Chapters to spin off and create their own
501(c)3 Non-Profits and then this is removed from the P&L of the OWASP
Foundation running their own chapters with a master governance/policy?
Many associations with chapters do this exact model ISC2 ISSA ISACA
I just want to understand your thinking here -- item for discussion
certainly that email can't capture but I don't think you want to split the
organization from (3) legal entities (USA, EU, Norway
to several hundred is that correct?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> If I am understanding correctly, you are suggesting that we should
> $0 to Chapter funding. While I understand that there are chapters that
> money in their accounts, there are many chapters who do not. The funding
> bucket that you are looking to eliminate is what enables new chapters to
> started, previous chapters to get restarted, and chapters with no money in
> their accounts to do things. Chapters are a huge part of OWASP's outreach
> mission and should be tied to it. We can certainly discuss "how much",
> I'm not comfortable shafting 100+ chapters based on the fact that some
> chapters have money. I was with you on the budget approach until this was
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org>
>> Hi all,
>> I want to start the process for the FY17 budget now, so that we have an
>> entire quarter to get it right and approved in concert with the new
>> Board members in December, so we can hit the ground running in 2017.
>> This year, the biggest change I need us to make is a pie based budget
>> instead of just adjusting last year's numbers, as last year's numbers
>> reflect the strategic goals of 2013, not what we want to do.
>> I propose two pies, for 501 (c) 3 reasons:
>> Administrative pie, capped at 10% of our total budget
>> Mission pie, capped at 90% of our total budget
>> This means that it becomes possible for us to show that we are spending a
>> goodly amount of our budget on mission, and capping administrative back
>> office costs at 10% of our overall budget. This will require staff who
>> currently paid from general revenue to be allocated within the budget to
>> specific strategic goal, with truly only OWASP Foundation core staff
>> and Alison, primarily) paid from the administrative budget.
>> We as a Board need to make decisions around the makeup of the mission
>> Website redesign
>> I personally think that the above strategic goals should each get 22.5%
>> each of the pie, with 10% of the remaining budget for the website
>> Conferences, being a profitable area for us should look to increase the
>> number of global events to four in 2017, and increase the number of
>> events. If anything, giving conferences a budget is more like a float
>> than a spending requirement, as they return funds to the organisation,
>> I also hope training will do one day, too.
>> So how big is this pie? We need to make a budget that stretches us to
>> $3m in FY17, which means we need to look at all sources of income, and
>> we need to do to make that a reality. Our revenue in 2015 was
>> we say we can do $2.7m this year (possible, depends on AppSec USA
>> profitability), $3m is within our grasp. So 10% is $300,000
>> costs, and then $610k each for education, outreach, conferences,
>> and up to $270k for the website. That is with no contingency, and assumes
>> AppSec USA is at least 10% more profitable than last year's.
>> Income measures will require a properly planned membership drive,
>> particularly in desired outreach groups (developers), a proper marketing
>> campaign to encourage donations and sponsorships, and I think we should
>> invest in a grant writer to get funds for projects, and use some of the
>> project funds to do a grant linked work program. We should also be
>> at using our contacts as a Board to develop relations with other large
>> organisations, to properly fund us as we look to grow to $5m per year in
>> few years.
>> Chapters have many existing sources of income, and they continue to do
>> well without additional funds being allocated to them, so I propose that
>> none of the mission pie is redirected to chapters as they have more than
>> of the available funds already. In fact, the spending pie above does not
>> take into account the fact that chapters will be getting funds before
>> So I *would* like us to enforce our already approved vote to force
>> chapters with large balances to come up with plans to spend the cash, or
>> sweep it back into general revenue, so we can use those unused funds to
>> the organisation in meaningful ways. This affects a tiny fraction of all
>> chapters. Denver is already taking measures to spend their funds on a
>> So for those of you on the Board who are the champions of a particular
>> strategic goal, I'd like you to come up with a plan of action for 2017,
>> associated costs. Let's put it into the budget, and get it done.
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
The information contained in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to the message, permanently delete it from your
computer and destroy any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board