[Owasp-leaders] [Global_conference_committee] [Committees-chairs] [Global_chapter_committee] [owasp-board] Re: 2012 Speaker Agreement Update
Ralph Durkee
rd at rd1.net
Thu Jun 28 10:56:02 UTC 2012
I've found collecting a draft of the presentation 30 days prior is a
good practice. The final can be 5 days prior. I would consider it
professional, and allows you to have copies for attendees ready when
they arrive.
-- Ralph Durkee
Principal Security Consultant
On 03/29/2012 07:50 AM, John Wilander wrote:
> My 50 cents ...
>
> 1) The policy should be a simple bullet list and not multiple sections
> of text. Understandable for non-native English speakers in less than
> three minutes should be the goal.
>
> 2) /"I will submit to the OWASP Event Leader my presentation(s) in one
> of the previous formats no later than 30 days prior to the
> conference."/ I rarely even start preparing my presentation 30 days
> prior to the event since I want it fresh and in my cache. If I do
> prepare that early, I prepare my *demos* which are part of my
> *presentation* but not part of a slide deck. This 30 days rule is a
> typical PowerPoint Pusher requirement that alienates many quality
> presenters. Giving good talks is an art that doesn't fit well with
> static, month-old slide decks.
>
> 3) The language of the policy is too formal for non-native English
> speakers. E.g. /"I agree to indemnify and hold harmless OWASP ..."/.
> With this level of language we'll have to translate it to several
> other languages => more time and effort spent on useless things while
> several high profile OWASP projects deteriorate.
>
> Regards, John
>
>
> 2012/3/29 Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org
> <mailto:dennis.groves at owasp.org>>
>
> I think we should be able to publish under the GNU Licenses as
> well. Additionally, I agree with Jim. I am just going to make it
> known that while I very much agree with vendor neutrality;
> however, we also must balance this with the fact that many of you
> are lucky to be supported by an employer who supports OWASP - and
> we should not discourage this! They are greasing the wheels and
> making it possible for OWASP to continue our mission. That said I
> believe OWASP should formalise that into a 'hard-line' so that
> they vendors have a clear incentives program, but still allows
> OWASP to maintain its strict vendor neutrality. In this way maybe
> more of us could find ourselves in the position Jim is in.
>
> Dennis
>
> --
> Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
> dennis.groves at owasp.org <mailto:dennis.groves at owasp.org>
>
> <http://www.owasp.org/>
>
> /This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a
> copy of this license, visit
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter
> to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
> California, 94041, USA./
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:47, Benny Ketelslegers
> <benny.ketelslegers at owasp.org
> <mailto:benny.ketelslegers at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
> I agree as well... No vendor pitch and creative commons but
> not to forget a non-liability clause for OWASP (chapter) for
> the content of the presentation. Although I'm not sure about
> legality of such an agreement in other (Asian) countries. Will
> do some research. We need to have a translated version anyway
> and too legal sounding text is hard to translate for
> "volunteers". For non-liability clause alone, I think asking
> the speaker to look and agree to it is important.
> Recommend using a template is fine but I rarely see it
> enforced, plus limits people in their creativity.
>
> My 2¥.
>
> Best regards
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Tin Zaw wrote:
>
> Jim, that was what I was saying as well, so I am 100% with
> you on it
> -- vendor neutral, and available under creative commons.
>
> Content and intent are more important than look of the
> slides. And
> supporters -- vendors, volunteers, etc. -- must be
> acknowledged.
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Mark Bristow
> <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> > I think your spot on.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> > Sent from my wireless device
> >
> > On Mar 28, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Jim Manico
> <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I think we need to enforce, strictly, only 2
> points on speakers:
> >
> > 1) All presentations must be creative commons.
> > 2) No vendor pitches.
> >
> > Number 1 is easy to enforce. Number 2 is very difficult
> to enforce.
> >
> > WhiteHat Security is very kindly sponsoring me to
> fly all over the
> > country/world to give vendor-neutral secure-coding
> creative-commons talks.
> > They asked me, very politely, to brand my PowerPoints as
> WhiteHat
> > Security. At first, I was really against this. But a few
> things changed my
> > mind today.
> >
> > 1) WhiteHat is paying my salary, which helps support my
> ability to deliver
> > these talks
> > 2) I would not be able to do this if it was not for
> their support giving me
> > massive chunks of time to do this
> > 3) WhiteHat is also a OWASP corporate sponsor and
> supports various OWASP
> > conferences
> > 4) They are not trying to control ANY of my content;
> they are even helping
> > me clean up my creative-commons slide decks.
> >
> > My integrity matters to me. But I am starting to think
> that a company who
> > supports me giving a whole lot of vendor-neutral
> creative-commons secure
> > coding talks deserves some recognition.
> >
> > Thoughts, community? Am I off base here?
> >
> > --
> > Jim Manico
> > (808) 652-3805 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Thomas Brennan
> <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We want to make a agreement that is acceptable to the
> goals and mission of
> > the association in raising application security.
> >
> > We don't want to have a paper-tiger agreement that is
> disregarded as to
> > complex and not enforced do we?
> >
> > Revise and alert the speakers for AppSecDC AppSecUSA
> EMEA, LATAM etc etc..
> > If OWASP can't do this with our employees and volenteers
> then call it what
> > Seba noted best practice.
> >
> > Content is content it's either valuable or it's not, I
> personally don't care
> > about a logo -- in many cases they paid the airfare,
> lodging and salary of
> > the speaker (this includes Goverment and other
> submitters) hence if the
> > preso sucks... It still sucks.
> >
> > The agreement is what I am changellging and asking the
> committes chapters
> > and conferences trot a health check - and the rest of
> the leaders for there
> > input as its their organization and they speak for the
> 160 chapters and
> > running conferences.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Jim Manico
> <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> >
> > The speaker agreement is already very clear on the topic
> of presentation
> > branding.
> >
> > " Speakers are encouraged to include their contact
> information when
> > introducing themselves, but may NOT include their logo
> on any visual and
> > handout materials. Speakers are to avoid any appearance
> of commercialism in
> > their session and presentations are to be of a technical
> or solutions
> > emphasis."
> >
> > At least 50% of all speakers I have seen violate this,
> including board
> > members.
> >
> > The question is, do we want to enforce this policy (from
> Nov 2011)?
> >
> > - Jim
> >
> >
> > A general remark from my side: only use the speaker
> agreement when in doubt.
> > We use this agreement very pragmatically in Belgium and
> have only pointed to
> > it upfront to speakers when we thought a certain
> speaker/topic could become
> > a commercial talk.
> >
> > Otherwise: minimize the red tape :-)
> >
> > --seba
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Teresa Stevens
> > <teresa-ann-stevens at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Josh. Thanks,
> >>
> >> Teresa Stevens, CISSP, MSIA, PMMC
> >> Information Security Specialist -- Team Leader
> >> San Francisco Bay Area
> >> 510-842-8868 <tel:510-842-8868> (home), 510--
>
> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
> Member, OWASP Global Chapter Committee
> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295 <tel:%28213%29%20973-9295>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> <mailto:Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Wilander, https://twitter.com/johnwilander
> Chapter co-leader OWASP Sweden, http://owaspsweden.blogspot.com
> Conf Comm, http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Conferences_Committee
> My music http://www.johnwilander.com & my résumé http://johnwilander.se
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120628/79a1603c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OWASP-Leaders
mailing list