[Owasp-leaders] Why it's ok to pay leaders

Rex Booth rex.booth at owasp.org
Thu Apr 12 15:01:48 UTC 2012


Does this thread only end when the two Dennis' feel that they've won?

Honestly, I think we have better things to focus on.  We all understand very clearly both sides of the discussion (and thanks to all for sharing) - let's now let the board decide on the owasp approach as Eoin indicated.

Rex

On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

> Well , I listed about 14 reasons why this is a bad idea (on an email on this thread and also posted on my blog: http://diniscruz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-owasp-cant-pay-owasp-leaders.html)
> 
> And if you don't agree with my items, could you please list the ones you think I'm wrong, with the reasons why?
> 
> The problem is always with details, and for example, Ken what you describe in "...fair and equitable selection process, with appropriate checks and balances, removal of conflicts of interest..." is just about impossible to do at OWASP (for example I've never seen it happen (some of the 14 items in http://diniscruz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-owasp-cant-pay-owasp-leaders.html also explain why this is impossible to do)). 
> 
> And In my point of view, that inability to implement such  "...fair and equitable selection process, with appropriate checks and balances, removal of conflicts of interest..." is one of OWASP's strongest assets and self-control mechanisms.
> 
> Can I again remind you that we even don't have a project manager and can manage our current projects/process/workflows (see http://diniscruz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/project-management-at-owasp.html)
> 
> Dinis Cruz
> 
> 
> On 12 April 2012 15:08, Kenneth Van Wyk <ken at krvw.com> wrote:
> OK, gotta chime in. I've followed this thread, and frankly, I can't even imagine why it's up for discussion.
> 
> If OWASP has money to fund a project/event/whatever, AND
> 
> Bidding on that funded effort is open to all, AND
> 
> There is a fair and equitable selection process, with appropriate checks and balances, removal of conflicts of interest, AND
> 
> An OWASP Leader happens to be selected, THEN
> 
> It's a win for everyone.
> 
> OWASP gets the effort from the person(s) selected.
> 
> The selected person(s) gets revenue for his/her efforts.
> 
> I mean, DUH! Why aren't we all doing a face-palm over this non-issue?
> 
> Please explain what I'm missing here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ken van Wyk
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20120412/fe5f59a7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list