[Owasp-leaders] [Committees-chairs] [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] [owasp-board] Re: 2012 Speaker Agreement Update

Benny Ketelslegers benny.ketelslegers at owasp.org
Thu Mar 29 03:47:36 UTC 2012


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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 (home), 510--
> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
> Member, OWASP Global Chapter Committee
> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <javascript:;>
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20120329/2f1b5ccd/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list