[Owasp-leaders] OWASP's New Executive Director - process?

Gregory Disney gregory.disney at owasp.org
Sun Apr 14 17:08:43 UTC 2013


If it's a promotion there doesn't have to be a open call for candidates
such as in Sarah case(she works hella hard for owasp). Lastly this is a
good thing every other foundation has a executive director. OWASP needs
direction to keep progression and as a incubator of innovation.
That's my 2 cents.


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Gregory Disney <gregory.disney at owasp.org>wrote:

> Seems to be going well besides a few things here and there; how about you?
> oops sorry that was meant to be foward on that thread.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you good sir!
>>
>> All well with you?
>>
>> Aloha,
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> @Manicode
>> (808) 652-3805
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Gregory Disney <gregory.disney at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If it's a promotion there doesn't have to be a open call for candidates
>> such as in Sarah case(she works hella hard for owasp). Lastly this is a
>> good thing every other foundation has a executive director. OWASP needs
>> direction to keep progression and as a incubator of innovation.
>> That's my 2 cents.
>> On Apr 14, 2013 11:06 AM, "Jim Manico" <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Rory,
>>>
>>> I think your comment below is a fair interpretation of events.
>>>
>>> Our intention was really innocent. We finally had the job details and
>>> job listing complete for Sarah, and so we posted it to the blog the day we
>>> sent her a copy. Then, she accepted. Which was not a given. We then
>>> published that she took the job a few days later (90 hours later).
>>>
>>> There was no ill will here, but I can understand the perception of ill
>>> will.
>>>
>>> One more note, there is some controversy around not having an "open
>>> listing" for this position and a call for candidates. I think that is a
>>> fair complaint.
>>>
>>> I can only hope the members of the board have earned some trust from the
>>> OWASP community. I think that is why I (and others on the board) were
>>> elected. I truly feel that Sarah is the right person for the job. It would
>>> be impossible to find someone with her credentials knowing that we only can
>>> afford a modest salary.
>>>
>>> If Sarah did not accept the position, I would have tried to initiate an
>>> open call for candidates. But she did accept, and I feel that OWASP will
>>> become stronger for it.
>>>
>>> I (and the board) are very happy to answer other questions about this
>>> matter. I hope these emails clear up some of the confusion.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Jim Manico
>>> OWASP Board Member
>>> @Manicode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > FWIW My 0.02,
>>> >
>>> > As far as I can see the only issue is a slight perception problem
>>> around
>>> > the announcement process.
>>> >
>>> > The first message that went out could have been read as "OWASP has
>>> decided
>>> > to have an executive director position and we'll be looking start the
>>> > process of filling it"
>>> >
>>> > which meant that the great news of Sarah appointment 4 days later seem
>>> > potentially odd (i.e. if there was going to be a process of finding a
>>> > candidate for the role and filling it, it would have taken more than 4
>>> days)
>>> >
>>> > What might have worked better is if the announcements of the creation
>>> of
>>> > the role and Sarah's appointment had been part of the same message or
>>> if
>>> > the first message had made it clear that the board already had someone
>>> in
>>> > mind for the role at that point.
>>> >
>>> > So to summarize I don't think (at least as far as I've read) has any
>>> > question about the robustness of the process or about who has been
>>> > appointed to the role, just that the communications left a gap for a
>>> level
>>> > of confusion.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > HTH
>>> >
>>> > Rory
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Leaders, if required I believe anyone with a strong view either way
>>> could
>>> >> attend a conference call to go through the process of hiring our new
>>> exec.
>>> >>
>>> >> On a board level, when this role was suggested there were sceptics,
>>> >> supporters etc. and the issues were worked through to the final
>>> decision
>>> >> and outcome. So this was a robust process.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think this new role and structure should improve things for the
>>> better
>>> >> such as supporting chapters, defining accountability, having an
>>> official
>>> >> spokesperson etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'd like to ask what are the perceived nagative issues?
>>> >>
>>> >> Eoin Keary
>>> >> Owasp Global Board
>>> >> +353 87 977 2988
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 13 Apr 2013, at 23:48, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I meant 90 hours; but you get my point. :) These are good questions
>>> >>> and I'm endeavoring to answer them as directly and honestly as I can.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Aloha,
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Jim Manico
>>> >>> @Manicode
>>> >>> (808) 652-3805
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Thank you for the information and clarification. I see.
>>> >>>> Best regards, Tobias
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ps.: btw. it seems you might have misread my email: the time from
>>> >>>> announcement of the role to filling it was 90 hours, not 90 days.
>>> ;-)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 13/04/13 23:39, Jim Manico wrote:
>>> >>>>> There was no selection process. As stated below, the board met in
>>> >>>>> private (because this was a staffing matter). After several rounds
>>> of
>>> >>>>> discussion by the board, and after an official unanimous vote, we
>>> >>>>> voted to promote Sarah Baso to Executive Director.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> This transpired over several weeks, not 90 days.
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Jim Manico
>>> >>>>> @Manicode
>>> >>>>> (808) 652-3805
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Jim,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> hm, thanks for the answer to my question #2.
>>> >>>>>> I read your answer as: at the current moment a replacement hire
>>> for
>>> >>>>>> Sarah's previous role is not planned.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> And not sure whether your first part of your email is intended to
>>> be
>>> >> an
>>> >>>>>> answer to my first question of "Would you mind to share some
>>> >> information
>>> >>>>>> about the process you used for this?"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Actually, although I don't like "private meetings" too much, I am
>>> less
>>> >>>>>> concerned about them as such, as long as the process itself is
>>> clear
>>> >> and
>>> >>>>>> is being communicated openly and allows community input (e.g. the
>>> JD
>>> >> and
>>> >>>>>> required qualifications and responsibilities and on the process,
>>> not
>>> >> the
>>> >>>>>> individual candidates). In this case I was quite surprised by how
>>> fast
>>> >>>>>> we moved from creation of the ED role to announcement of filling
>>> it.
>>> >> You
>>> >>>>>> did this in just 90 hours. Which is probably the fastest I have
>>> ever
>>> >>>>>> seen and makes me quite curious to find out what process you
>>> used. I
>>> >>>>>> have hired a number of people in the past and so far this is the
>>> >> fastest
>>> >>>>>> process I have ever seen, which raises a few simple questions:
>>> >>>>>> - at that speed, was there some kind of selection process already
>>> >> before
>>> >>>>>> the announcement of the new role and what was that?
>>> >>>>>> - did you have a JD (job description) with the outlined needed
>>> >>>>>> qualifications, experience, skills? (I saw the role description
>>> with
>>> >> the
>>> >>>>>> responsibilities of the role, but that doc didn't have any
>>> information
>>> >>>>>> on what person you are looking for), did you have a certain salary
>>> >> range
>>> >>>>>> in mind? etc.
>>> >>>>>> - How many candidates did you consider? (and were there any
>>> >> applications
>>> >>>>>> from the community in these 90hours?)
>>> >>>>>> - And depending on the number of applications you had, how did you
>>> >>>>>> determine the match and for what reason did you choose to not ask
>>> for
>>> >>>>>> further applications from the community?
>>> >>>>>> - How many interviews did you conduct, how many board members were
>>> >>>>>> involved in the interview process?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I find your last sentence about the distribution of power
>>> interesting.
>>> >>>>>> And that seizing of new power sounds an alarm for you. Maybe a
>>> >> thought:
>>> >>>>>> taking a step back it seems what just happened is that in fact we
>>> did
>>> >>>>>> concentrate power from a group of elected people (the board) to
>>> one
>>> >>>>>> individual (the ED), and note: our other staff's power has
>>> probably
>>> >> also
>>> >>>>>> been reduced in relationship to the ED. I am not debating whether
>>> this
>>> >>>>>> is right or wrong in this case (as one might argue that the board
>>> >> needs
>>> >>>>>> to choose to delegate this power due to time constraints and/or
>>> lack
>>> >> of
>>> >>>>>> own personal capability). But using your own concept, as we
>>> >> concentrated
>>> >>>>>> power in one individual role, we should be very careful and as
>>> open as
>>> >>>>>> possible (of course within the legal boundaries) with the process
>>> of
>>> >>>>>> doing so?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> So I would be really interested to learn a little bit about the
>>> >> process
>>> >>>>>> OWASP used in the selection.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Tobias
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Ps.: and again: Let me be clear I am making no statement about the
>>> >>>>>> decision itself or Sarah's qualification for this role.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 13/04/13 22:26, Jim Manico wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Tobias,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> We were not seeking candidates for this role. We (unanimously)
>>> >>>>>>> promoted Sarah to Executive Director. Because these board
>>> >> conversation
>>> >>>>>>> were about employee matters, we had those conversations in
>>> private.
>>> >>>>>>> It's the •only• private board discussion that I have seen in 2013
>>> >>>>>>> during my term. It's the primary role of the board to hire staff
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> As Executive Director, it's now Sarahs job to rearrange the
>>> staff as
>>> >>>>>>> she sees fit or hire someone new (if the budget allows).
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> So the answer is, we shall see!
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Last note, I am very wary regarding "private board discussions".
>>> If
>>> >>>>>>> the board has private discussions that lead to seizing of new
>>> power,
>>> >>>>>>> that's a huge alarm. But the opposite happened here. We removed
>>> >>>>>>> operational leadership from the board and passed it to Sarah and
>>> the
>>> >>>>>>> staff. It's the boards job to keep watch over this, but I'm
>>> >> personally
>>> >>>>>>> really thrilled about this change in OWASP's organizational
>>> >> structure.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Aloha,
>>> >>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>> Jim Manico
>>> >>>>>>> @Manicode
>>> >>>>>>> (808) 652-3805
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> As OWASP created the new ED position and Sarah got promoted into
>>> >> this. Do we now intend to hire a new person to take over Sarah's
>>> previous
>>> >> role?
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130414/a4c9ab35/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list