[Owasp-leaders] Moving to Global Initiatives Program & Retiring Committee Structure

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Tue Feb 19 12:44:04 UTC 2013


Forgive us if this was "too soon". I think the GIC was impacted more
negatively than most. I'd be happy to meet with the GIC and make
suggestions (and assist with) a smoother transition.

Please keep charging for now, meritocracy still rules the roost. Let's
sync up off list and I and/or Sarah will meet with you to aid in a
more smooth transition.

Is this acceptable for now?

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Christian Papathanasiou
<christian.papathanasiou at owasp.org> wrote:

> Guys this has been hastily agreed and executed. Im all for a transition that is well communicated and smoothly executed however this abrupt  approach is ill thought out.
>
> We have stakeholders and we need to ensure continuity of outreach and initiatives.
>
> Having the GIC dissolved at this precise moment with so many initiatives mid flight, with our name and brand on the line would be damaging for OWASP especially as we have been socialising  the survey with CISO's under the GIC banner..
>
> Kind regards
> Christian
>
>
> On 19 Feb 2013, at 10:38, marco.m.morana at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Jim, what is the basis/rationale for dissolving OWASP committees ? Did we factor the impact on the current activities and projects lead by people that are part of each committee? For example , the GIC is currently involved in activities coordinated by the committee lead such as reaching up CISOs for the CISO survey, BITSs and PRing the Appsec Guide for CISO. If the OWASP GIC get dissolved which OWASP group is going to continue these activities? Can we discuss this to a targeted meeting for the GIC?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Marco M.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2013, at 02:32, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> How about you take point on a new Global Initiative to review and expand on the vendor neutrality guidelines. I'll help.
>>>
>>> Aloha,
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 18 Feb 2013, at 22:53, Eoin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a board member it think it is only correct to say that
>>>>>
>>>>> Dissolving a committee is only in name. For example the Industry
>>>>> committee
>>>>> is active, energetic and has an impressive cast of members.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly don't think such a grouping of people should disbanded due to
>>>>> their "Banner" being dissolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all OWASP is just people, does not matter what team or group or
>>>>> committee you are involved in. You can do (nearly) anything you want and
>>>>> have the time to do it.
>>>>
>>>> Great points, but the 'nearly' anything is exactly what needs to be
>>>> worked out. For example the 'Ethics' thread has a wealth of proposed
>>>> 'rules for engagement' with OWASP; many of which seem like common sense
>>>> and just plain good behaviour. But obviously not all board members agree
>>>> since some are behaving incongruent with the mission of the organisation...
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list