[Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Remote Repositories on SourceForge - TOPIC CLOSED

dinis cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Sun Jan 8 16:41:23 UTC 2012


FYI, I'm not going to reply to any of Christian's wild and defamatory
accusations.

The reason is not because I couldn't give a strong rebuttal, but because
talking/arguing with Christian it is pointless.

That said, if true, those accusations would be quite serious and something
I would absolutely address if raised by another OWASP Leader.

So if you share some of Christian's concern about my actions and
contributions to OWASP, please raise them them to me DIRECTLY (let's avoid
more OWASP leaders list traffic)

Thanks

Dinis Cruz


On 8 January 2012 11:19, Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich at owasp.org>wrote:

> Dinis,
>
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Inquiries/Google_Hacking_Project
> was intended as character assassination due to the accusations being
> proven false beyond a reasonable doubt from "unverified sources".
>
> A majority of the OWASP Board recognise your involvement was simply
> driven by your poor attempt at seeking revenge that I denied Ounce a
> second presentation of 02 at OWASP EU 2009.  As expected, due to a
> change in employment their brand abuse was no longer an issue for you
> i.e.
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2007-January/000185.html
>
> Also, in relation to the false complaint that Justin Derry "lost"
> sponsorship money at OWASP AU 2008
> i.e.https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2009-March/002080.html
> that you attempted to discuss with me at OWASP EU 2009, I would like
> to highlight the significant loss of $45,510.64 over budget for a
> total spend of $226,606.29 i.e.
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/committees-chairs/2011-July/000322.html.
>
> Furthermore, the OWASP Board has also admitted that the suspension is
> illegal under the OWASP Foundation Rules at that time i.e. the section
> cited by Chris Schmidt didn't exist, and was simply the only avenue of
> containing the embarrassing fallout that you created.
>
> Consider their reluctance to publish the outcome of the inquiry i.e.
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-September/009090.html
> and
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-September/009089.html
>
> What supports this is that the OWASP Board didn't suspend you in light
> of the significant damage to my character and reputation as a result
> of the character assassination because this would have resulted its
> due process being further questioned than it already had i.e.
> 1. "i have removed the "audience" from this email,something Dinis, you
> should of done"
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-July/008566.html
> 2. http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-July/008598.html
> 3. "is there a process for this which stands up to scrutiny and is
> unbiased" i.e.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-July/008706.html
>
> Just so you know Dinis, in light of your claim that I was "pissing
> people off in Australia" with OWASP I was able to schedule two
> presentations within Australia after OWASP suspended me and not
> because of my "association" with OWASP i.e.
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-November/003946.html
> and http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-October/009205.html.
>  I was also assisting Andrew van der Stock with the relationship with
> Ruxcon as I was an invited to speak by them in 2005, 2006 and 2008 but
> apparently even in light of my good relationship Ruxcon they still
> (for some odd reason) are behind these sock puppets according to Chris
> Gatford but them again Chris Gatford denies ever being in contact with
> Brad, apparently this was Ruxcon too but I somehow don't fall for this
> like you or "phishing expert" Brad did.
>
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-November/009231.html,
> https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-December/004040.html
> and https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2007-August/000517.html
> demonstrate your ulterior motive in relation to attacking other
> successful open source projects like w3af because Andreas refused it
> to become an OWASP Project and the lack of regard for the concerns
> expressed by the South American and Asia Pacific communities.
>
> While Chris's quote i.e. "Although Christian has in the past made
> valuable contributions to this community the only contribution I have
> seen since his return is to make accusations of other OWASP
> volunteers" the OWASP Board deliberately ignored you last time i.e.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-May/005304.html
> because they realise I have numerous other examples, such as your O2
> presentation to Microsoft, you taking credit for the introduction of
> Mozilla to OWASP, etc of your poor behaviour the fact is that but
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/io/how-open-source-projects-survive-poisonous-people
> can be applied to your lack of character and integrity when you jump
> on the bandwagon against me and the resulting damage to OWASP globally
> and in Australia that it causes.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Chris is spot on, and is last point on Christian membership should be
> acted
> > upon.
> >
> > We only get negative energy from Christian and he has made wild+offensive
> > accusations to a large number of core Owasp contributors.
> >
> > Although some of the issues have some merit, the way Christian raises
> them
> > always end up in defamation and energy sucking exercises (and actually
> have
> > the side effect to preventing a rational discussion about those issues)
> >
> > I ask the Board to take a position on this issue
> >
> > Dinis Cruz
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/user:cmlh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20120108/ccb7d1b1/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list