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

Tiffany Long tiffany.long at owasp.org
Wed Feb 8 18:01:32 UTC 2017


including the blog link for refrence:
http://owasp.blogspot.com/2017/02/owasp-operations-update-for-february.html

Tiffany Long
Community Manager

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Tiffany Long <tiffany.long at owasp.org> wrote:

>
> I should note, that it is the chapter handbook that requires paid members
> be allowed to vote in local elections and does not prevent local elections
> from including non paid member votes.  Bil, how wide spread is the problem
> of people showing up to vote for a member and then not coming back?  Is
> this a wide spread problem or an individual problem.  Because if
> individual, I feel that can be handled case by case.  If it affects 15%
> then we do need to focus on it.  However, we have a multicultural chapters
> program and I a wary of putting wide spread rules in place that leaders
> from some geographic areas say will chill their growth.
>
> Either way, this could probably be discussed on the chapter handbook
> conversation either directly in the chapters under review, on the blog
> itself, or on a list conversation rather than the membership conversation
> if we wish to keep them separate.
>
> Best,
> Tiffany
>
> Tiffany Long
> Community Manager
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kelly Santalucia <
> kelly.santalucia at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bil,
>>
>> Please see my answers below in blue to your inquiries
>>
>> *2. Do we still need honorary memberships, especially if the cost of
>> membership reflects the local purchasing power?*
>>
>> Tiffany Long reply: 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?
>>
>> Honorary Memberships were originally created to reward our chapter and
>> project leaders for their dedication and time that they contribute to
>> OWASP.
>>
>> *Bil Corry reply: 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.*
>>
>> For 2016 we had 74 Honorary Members.  As of today we have 81 Honorary
>> Members (see graph below).
>>
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>>
>>
>> *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).*
>>
>> Tiffany Long reply: 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.)
>>
>> The Individual Membership benefit regarding voting currently reads* "**You
>> will have (1) vote for annual elections on issues that shape the direction
>> of the professional community." *Please see the Individual Membership
>> benefits which are listed here
>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Individual_Member>. We can look at
>> updating this to include that paid and honorary members are also allowed to
>> vote in any chapter election. Currently there is no mention of allowing
>> non-paid members to vote in local chapter elections.
>>
>> *Bil Corry reply: 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.*
>>
>>
>> *Currently there is no mention of allowing non-paid members to vote in
>> local chapter elections. Individuals must either be a paid or honorary
>> member to receive a ballot to cast a vote in the annual elections. Their
>> membership must be on file with the Foundation for a certain amount of time
>> prior to the start of the voting process. The time their membership must be
>> on file, depends on the election start date.*
>>
>> *6. I wish the AppSec conference discount was a little bigger for
>> lifetime members.*
>>
>> Tiffany Long reply: Perhaps this should be weighed against the expected
>> lifetime of an OWASP member so that we can gauge the fiscal impact?
>>
>> *Bil Corry reply: 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.*
>>
>>
>> We currently have 169 Lifetime Members. The Lifetime Membership proposal
>> included many new benefits which are listed below.
>>
>>
>>    - Never Expires
>>    - Allocate 40% to Local Chapter or Project
>>    - Vote in annual election
>>    - Email Address
>>    - Entrance in Member Lounge
>>    - $100 discount on Global AppSec Conferences
>>    - Membership Kit including
>>    - Embossed Membership Certificate
>>       - Limited Edition Membership Card
>>       - Special Membership Shirt
>>       - Stickers
>>    - Special Gift ($50 value)
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bil Corry <bil.corry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Kelly Santalucia*
>>
>> *Membership and Business Liaison*
>>
>>
>> OWASP Foundation
>> 1200-C Agora Drive, #232 |Bel Air, MD  21014 | USA
>> Direct: 1+ 973-670-5784 <(973)%20670-5784> | Fax: 1+ 443-283-4021
>> <(443)%20283-4021>
>>
>> *Consider giving back, and supporting the open source community by
>> becoming a member <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Membership> today!*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170208/41d4475b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 110182 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20170208/41d4475b/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list