[Owasp-leaders] Proposal: Remove all commercial/non-OWASP logos from OWASP.org

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Apr 4 23:53:44 UTC 2013


Thank you Tony (and Dan Cornell) for your insights in this thread.

Let me flip the conversation a bit. Did you all know that the NFL (the US
National Football League) is a tax exempt non profit organization? They are
a 501c6 : •not• a charity. They are essentially a trade organization that
provide and enforces the various rules. They also help market the league
for the various for-profit football teams in the US.

This is not my personal preference, but it is an option.

We could also morph OWASP into a for-profit corporation. Again not my
preference, but many members of the community have suggested it to me in my
travels.

I think a "constitutional conference" is in order. I'd love to see our
voting members, project and chapter leaders, founders, sponsors, major
contributors, board members and full time staff get together and create a
vision for OWASP 3.0. I feel the time is right for this kind of major
change.

Aloha,
--
Jim Manico
@Manicode
(808) 652-3805

On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Tony UV <tonyuv at owasp.org> wrote:

Dinis and all the +1's on this topic in favor,

I just finished reading this chain of emails on the topic and Dinis' blog.
Simply said, I'll concur with Curphey's comment on the matter by asking, *what
exactly is the extent of this problem*? Its important to know that as
non-profit volunteers, we don't want to be answering our own questions b/c
we're jaded and already opinionated from within. So, the real determination
for whether this is a problem and to what extent is going to come from the
people we serve - the user base.

Have you asked them about perception?  Have you taken the time to quickly
draw up a simple 10 question questionnaire on surveymonkey.com or the sort
and gauge their opinion on how they perceive OWASP?  Perception from within
is really not going to make a whole lot of sense if the people we serve
with projects and tools couldn't care less and don't identify with our more
biased thoughts on the matter.

If you do take the time to provide some metrics around this problem, then I
would ask you to pose other questions that may masquerade the surveyor's
intent on killing logos. One timely question may be, to compare which has a
better priority for end users - a better UI for the overall site or taking
down some logos. There is also multiple shades of grey that can be asked to
compare the idea of eradicating logos to other initiatives, say like
actually haveing some content behind some of the projects that are out
there, not having broken links, etc.  I really think that via surveying
users with these types of questions will really put things in true
perspective. The key thing to remember here is that its not OUR perspective
but rather the perspective of the PEOPLE we serve that's important.  In the
end, the logo concern is a perception issue, RIGHT?  Or is it something
else?

For the record, I do think that Jim's idea or support of a separate page
dedicated to sponsors is good.  I also think that Antonio pointed out to
further obtain more information via impressions on the site - again further
suggestions to better understand this 'problem'. I think that understanding
how our users use the site, may also denote whether or not they care to see
logos or not.  Most of my colleagues have a specific place where they go
and to be quite honest, I had to scroll down to see the wall of logos, but
that is b/c I'm simply not looking and I'm pretty sure the wiki is not a
destination site where people are there for more than 5 minutes combing
through all the content, but rather simply getting there by referral sites
mostly due to projects and/ or they already know what they want and simply
go and get it.  To be honest, its better to understand their visitation
experiences before we presume that a commercialized OWASP is generating
associated perceptions of hidden agendas by product or service firms or
tainting the non-profit's image.  I also would like to concur with Dan that
most companies that support OWASP do not do so for the ROI in their
marketing dollars but as a way to give back and support greater awareness
through a completely autonomous organization.

By the way, getting rid of logos will is not a problem in OWASP's road to
launching a '*new generation of OWASP content and tools*'.  That's always
been time and talent - both of which wouldn't get turned off by bmp, jpegs,
or gifs floating around on an html page on a wiki.  Lets not
over-sensationalize the revolution of divesting logos - its a good idea,
and perhaps can be more tactfully contained on a separate page, but lets
put some meat behind the problem before we make a call to arms.

-- 

Tony UcedaVelez

*Atlanta Chapter President*

*OWASP Atlanta*

http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Atlanta_Georgia

Twitter: *@versprite*


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:

> *(Resending this email, since for some reason I got a bounce from the
> email I sent to owasp-leaders a couple days ago).*
> *(I also blogged this at
> http://blog.diniscruz.com/2013/04/proposal-remove-all-commercialnon-owasp.html, and there are already a couple good comments in there from Michael and
> Mark)*
>
> Following the recent threads about the commercialization of OWASP, I think
> the time as come for a simple move, that will be a little bit painful, but
> will clear the water and send a nice big message of what OWASP stands for.
>
> *Remove all commercial/non-owasp-projects logos from OWASP.org*
>
> This move has a log of advantages:
>
>    - it is generic so it doesn't single out anybody
>    - it can be done since there are no 'real' contractual obligations for
>    OWASP to put company's XYZ logo on the OWASP site
>       - note that OWASP can change the content of any content hosted on
>       owasp.org , as long as the changed content is released in an
>       compatible license :)
>       - in fact anybody can start the http://owasp-without-logos.org site
>       with all content from owasp.org, expect the 3rd party logos
>    - it will push the cases where sponsor-logos are expected to exist, to
>    be placed in separate/dedicated 3rd party websites (like what happens with
>    AppSec conferences)
>       - and if there ARE execptions, they should be treated as one-of
>       exceptions (and be fully documented)
>    - it will stop the current *'F1/NASCAR logo parade'* that is the OWASP
>    main page, and some of its projects
>    - it will stop the nasty and non-productive *"hey that
>    company shouldn't have their logo in that project"* threads
>    - it will send a strong message that OWASP is about sharing
>    information and all information/tools/projects that are 'donated' to owasp
>    are supposed to be shared in a no-strings/logos attached mode
>    - it will clarify that *the OWASP logo, name, tools and content CAN be
>    used in commercial situations, as long as it is done outside of
>    OWASP.org*
>    - it shows a sign of maturity for OWASP, where OWASP doesn't need
>    (anymore) to sell a bit of its soul in exchange for good content and tools
>    - it shows that OWASP's value to the corporate sponsors, is NOT a logo
>    on owasp.org, but the amazing value provided by the multiple OWASP
>    activities, events and projects.
>    - it shows that OWASP can learn from others, and in this case, follow
>    (as Jim recommended) the Apache foundation example (see
>    http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html )
>
> There are a couple disadvantages:
>
>    - Some OWASP leaders and supporting companies will be annoyed and fell
>    that *'OWASP changed the value-added they would get by contributing to
>    OWASP'*
>    - Some OWASP corporate sponsors might even be so angry that they don't
>    renew their anual membership
>    - Some OWASP leaders might be so annoyed that they stop contributing
>    at all to OWASP
>    - This is one of those issues that has the potential to generate a
>    gazilion of emails, with lots of opinions and no decisions in the end. Btw,
>    the faster 'a' decision is made the better (Yes or No).
>
> I believe that OWASP today (April 2013) is in the perfect situation to
> make this move. There is enough money to sustain any financial loss (which
> I don't think will happen) and the OWASP projects are still in a state
> where a drop of a couple OWASP leaders wouldn't have a dramatic effect
> (which again i don't think will happen)
>
> So what do you say, fellow OWASP friends, should we make this jump?
>
> *My vote is YES, lets get rid of the commercial logos in OWASP and start
> a new generation of OWASP content and tools*
>
> Dinis Cruz
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130405/470f98ad/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list