[Owasp-board] This is a thread for discussing the membership proposal as linked in the connector.

Bil Corry bil.corry at owasp.org
Tue Feb 7 20:39:55 UTC 2017


My responses in *bold.*


*2. Do we still need honorary memberships, especially if the cost of
membership reflects the local purchasing power?*
*Honorary memberships were introduced when OWASP had a desperate need for
volunteers.  We no longer do,  but the question is should the way honorary
memberships reflect the fact that we value the labor of leadership above
the membership price is a valuable social construct continue?*

*Can we get a report tallying how many honorary members we have each
year?  It's not worth discussing if it's 2 people.  If it's 500, then
perhaps we should think more carefully about it.*



*3. For each tier that can vote in global elections, should also add that
they can vote in local elections (or put another way, only members can vote
in local elections).The rules currently state that all members, paid and
honorary, MUST be allowed to vote in any chapter election.  They also leave
room to allow chapters to actively choose to allow non paid members to vote
in local elections.  I think this covers our minimum needs and allows
chapters to choose to be more open where culturally or otherwise
appropriate. (so this is a sort of stance, I guess.)*

*Allowing anyone to vote, and/or allowing members to vote in multiple local
elections has the downside that the election can be rigged by a small group
of people with friends/family willing to show up once a year (or every
other year).  This isn't theoretical, it's being reported to the Compliance
Committee.  My proposed solution solves this issue, but does mean changing
the rules.  Or I'm open to other solutions, but the current rules do not
work universally and must change.  Or go with the status quo of chapters
with bogus elections that drive away members.*


*6. I wish the AppSec conference discount was a little bigger for lifetime
members.*
*Perhaps this should be weighed against the expected lifetime of an OWASP
member so that we can gauge the fiscal impact?*

*As you pointed out in your response to #2, it may also depend on the value
we place on having lifetime members.  Given only two out of the seven Board
members are lifetime members, it could probably use an uplift in perks.*


- Bil



On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Tiffany Long <tiffany.long at owasp.org>
wrote:

> I have some thoughts and answered them in line. None of them are defending
> or attacking any position, just adding context.
>
> 1. Should pricing be based on local purchasing power?  $20 isn't a lot in
> the US, but it is elsewhere in the world.  For example, go to
> https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp, sort by
> the far right column (local purchasing power), take that list and divide it
> into different pricing groups based on their purchasing power.
>
> There are two things to keep in mind here; first, when discussing
> purchasing power remember that our audience tends to be well paid.  So
> where $50 is a lot of money in India for some, for our audience it is the
> price of two meals with two drinks for two in most cities. In the US change
> those drinks to alcoholic drinks and it is the price of one or one meal
> with water in San Francisco.  This is a fair annual price if we can show
> value.
>
> Second, atm we can only adjust price by region.  This means that Japan and
> Australia and Singapore will pay the same as Indonesia and the Philippians.
> Moving to a flexible plan fixes this, but includes the issue of global
> voter distribution. That said, I think the flexible plan can address that
> issue as well.
>
>
> 2. Do we still need honorary memberships, especially if the cost of
> membership reflects the local purchasing power?
> Honorary memberships were introduced when OWASP had a desperate need for
> volunteers.  We no longer do,  but the question is should the way honorary
> memberships reflect the fact that we value the labor of leadership above
> the membership price is a valuable social construct continue?
>
> 3. For each tier that can vote in global elections, should also add that
> they can vote in local elections (or put another way, only members can vote
> in local elections).
>
> The rules currently state that all members, paid and honorary, MUST be
> allowed to vote in any chapter election.  They also leave room to allow
> chapters to actively choose to allow non paid members to vote in local
> elections.  I think this covers our minimum needs and allows chapters to
> choose to be more open where culturally or otherwise appropriate. (so this
> is a sort of stance, I guess.)
>
> 4. I personally don't want a certificate or membership card, but for those
> who do, you could create a PDF for them.
> This is a recurring request, and this solution is included in the plan.
> Interestingly, the request for membership card is loosely associated with
> geographic region until the rank of lifetime member.
>
> 5. The two year membership price tier should end at $349 and add another
> tier for a 4-year membership between $350 and $599.  Yes, that means there
> isn't a 3-year membership level, but I don't think one is needed.
>
> 6. I wish the AppSec conference discount was a little bigger for lifetime
> members.
> Perhaps this should be weighed against the expected lifetime of an OWASP
> member so that we can gauge the fiscal impact?
>
>
> One thought on Corporate memberships:
>
> 1. Take a flat percentage of the total membership fee (e.g. 40%) and
> convert it into "OWASP Bucks" (or call it whatever you want).  Then rather
> than giving free ads, or free job postings, instead still offer the
> discounts, but let the Corporate member spend the OWASP Bucks where they
> want.  Some may want to support a chapter or project, others may want to
> get a Connector ad, or purchase tickets to AppSec USA, or buy a job
> posting.  It makes Corporate spending much easier because they wouldn't
> need to have different funding conversations at their company.
>
>
> Tiffany Long
> Community Manager
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> True, it might be some people who are unemployed or on a fixed income
>> will not be able to join as a member, but they can still participate in
>> OWASP.  Unlike many organizations, OWASP doesn't require membership to
>> participate.
>>
>> - Bil
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bil, $20 is a lot in quite a few abandoned, neglected communities in
>>> the US too.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some thoughts on Individual memberships (disclosure, I'm a lifetime
>>>> member):
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should pricing be based on local purchasing power?  $20 isn't a lot
>>>> in the US, but it is elsewhere in the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170207/4dc6328a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list