christian.heinrich at owasp.org
Wed Aug 10 01:53:14 EDT 2011
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
> Well Jim,
> How about this: If board members want responsibility then let it come with
> accountability - why should there be a bylaw that gives them indemnity?? I
> strongly disagree with lack of accountability for responsible parties. This
> is always used for abuse of power and nothing else. The board is bias as
> they are responsible but not accountable so why are they allowed to vote?
> Surely this is a conflict of interest.
> Everything I read claims GLOBAL values but is very USA centric; including
> the formation of the bureaucracy that more resembles the very US Banks which
> are among the most corrupt organizations in the world. And every time
> somebody from outside the USA speaks up all the Americans gather together
> like a pack of wolves to tear apart the ideas that seem to threaten the
> power grab.
> Don't get me wrong, I believe that governance is required and necessary in
> any viable system - but we need to be improving or pioneering governance
> systems not copying american centric models that support corruption.
> Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
> dennis.groves at owasp.org
"Article IV - Indemnity" within
https://www.owasp.org/images/0/0d/OWASP_ByLaws.pdf has been retained within
That stated, the "indemnity" clause should include "members" in its scope
and in which case legal action, such as defamation or public liability that
occurs at OWASP can only be brought against the Foundation and *not* against
Therefore, is there a legal roadblock prohibiting indemnity being extended
to members? Tom (Brennan) might be able to address this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders