<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>+1 and well said, Matt.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I still think Josh is on the right path here. Moving the "at large" positions to something more tangible and inline with strategic goals seems like a great idea even if we do not make a bylaw change.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Aloha,<br><div>--</div><div>Jim Manico</div><div><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Global Board Member</span></div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">OWASP Foundation</span><div class=""><a href="https://www.owasp.org/" class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">https://www.owasp.org</font></a></div></div></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Join me in Rome for AppSecEU 2016!</span></div></div></div><div><br>On Nov 5, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Matt Konda <<a href="mailto:matt.konda@owasp.org">matt.konda@owasp.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Josh,<div><br></div><div>I've been thinking more about this and I wonder if it makes more sense to combine the discussion around board roles and strategic goals.  It may sound crazy but bear with me a minute here.</div><div><br></div><div>I get that "at-large" is ambiguous and that projects, chapters and governance are three areas that are foundational and intuitively require ongoing attention.  I would argue that membership, sponsors, IT, events and developer evangelism could all be equally important responsibilities that board members, along with community and staff take on and work at tirelessly.  I'm sure there are others.</div><div><br></div><div>To me, if we do a good job defining strategic goals and treat those as projects (not OWASP Projects, but projects with a plan and milestones, etc.) then hold one board member accountable for understanding the plan and reporting progress against it, it accomplishes a similar objective while being flexible to the defined strategic goals each year.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, this year we could see our strategic goals through these lenses and build small teams including board members to work on each: </div><div>* Website</div><div>* Chapters</div><div>* Projects</div><div>* Developer Outreach</div><div>* Membership</div><div>* Sponsors </div><div>* Operational Efficiency</div><div><br></div><div>I think I would rather not see explicit bylaw changes to define roles.  That just seems heavy weight to me.  I also agree with what Jim said yesterday - that we all need to be advocates for chapters, projects, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, as I said in the meeting, I think we want to strike a balance between leading and making OWASP seem like a top down board driven organization - when in fact, we are (I know we agree here) really a community driven organization.</div><div><br></div><div>My two cents.</div><div><br></div><div>Matt</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:39 PM, OWASP <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tomb@owasp.org" target="_blank">tomb@owasp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Excellent resources available on the topic from Blue</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/board-roles-and-responsibilities" target="_blank">https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/board-roles-and-responsibilities</a></div><div><br></div><br><div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">Tom Brennan <br><a href="tel:973-506-9304" value="+19735069304" target="_blank">973-506-9304</a><br><br><br><br><br></div></div>
</div>

<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div>On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Tobias <<a href="mailto:tobias.gondrom@owasp.org" target="_blank">tobias.gondrom@owasp.org</a>> wrote:</div><br></div></div><div><div><div class="h5">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div>A few thoughts: <br>
      1. I would also very much like to see the committees be build by
      the community, however, at this point, I get the feeling that this
      is not happening. Not quite sure why. But I see this as the
      reality we have to accept for the time being. <br>
      2. for the areas, actually, I have a different view, I would be
      fine for the board members to be "at large". But I can see a use
      for certain focus points to be driven by individual board members.
      Btw. most boards have sub-committees (chaired by some of the board
      members) that focus on specific areas and develop mature proposals
      before they are presented to the whole board for tweaking and
      approval. In fact that would probably be useful for us as well as
      it could improve the maturity of proposal drafts coming to the
      board meetings. I don't mind to have a broad discussion, but in a
      number of cases, when 2-3 people work on refining a proposal
      first, that can later streamline the overall discussion in the
      board and with the community. <br>
      So I rather not see these focus areas in the hand of one board
      member, but could see us have one board member lead a small design
      team for certain areas on preparing the drafts to a better quality
      level. IMHO that does not mean that each and every board member
      has to take on one area. Of course, I would strongly encourage
      sharing and balancing of work load on these tasks. <br>
      <br>
      My thoughts on this. Not sure that answers your question. <br>
      <br>
      Best regards, Tobias<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 29/09/15 16:58, Josh Sokol wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>I have no issues with rebuilding the committees, but I feel
          that they should be built by the community, not by the Board. 
          This is less operational and more "vision" of the organization
          in those areas.<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        ~josh<br>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Matt
          Konda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt.konda@owasp.org" target="_blank">matt.konda@owasp.org</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr">Josh,
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Interesting idea.  I like that it emphasizes projects
                and chapters explicitly.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>What would your thinking be on that versus rebuilding
                committees and asking all board members to be active in
                at least one committee?</div>
              <span><font color="#888888">
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Matt</div>
                </font></span></div>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
                  <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:10
                    PM, Josh Sokol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh.sokol@owasp.org" target="_blank">josh.sokol@owasp.org</a>></span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>
                              <div>
                                <div>
                                  <div>
                                    <div>
                                      <div>
                                        <div>
                                          <div>Board,<br>
                                            <br>
                                          </div>
                                          I wanted to make a proposal
                                          regarding the positions that
                                          are determined at the
                                          beginning of the year amongst
                                          the new Board members.  The
                                          more I think about it, the
                                          more I dislike the concept of
                                          an "At Large" Board position. 
                                          I get it.  It's kind a
                                          catch-all for those who don't
                                          have a specific role, but I
                                          would like to change it to be
                                          more specific.  I would like
                                          to propose to change the Board
                                          positions to:<br>
                                          <br>
                                        </div>
                                        Chair<br>
                                      </div>
                                      Vice Chair<br>
                                    </div>
                                    Treasurer<br>
                                  </div>
                                  Secretary<br>
                                </div>
                                Governance<br>
                              </div>
                              Projects<br>
                            </div>
                            Chapters<br>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          The idea being that these "At Large" positions
                          are now given specific areas of focus.  They
                          are tasked with providing updates and
                          contemplating initiatives that would provide
                          value in those areas.  We can work on a more
                          formal write-up later, but I wanted to see
                          what others thought about the idea.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
                              <br>
                            </font></span></div>
                        <span><font color="#888888">~josh<br>
                          </font></span></div>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div></div></div>

_______________________________________________<br>Owasp-board mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Owasp-board@lists.owasp.org" target="_blank">Owasp-board@lists.owasp.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board" target="_blank">https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Governance mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Governance@lists.owasp.org">Governance@lists.owasp.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance">https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>