[Owasp-leaders] Moving to Global Initiatives Program & Retiring Committee Structure
eoin.keary at owasp.org
Tue Feb 19 14:50:47 UTC 2013
Lets keep the GIC going!!
Put a task in "the list" for establishing a Industry working group - red
tape is here!! yippee :)
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM, 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
> 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
> 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
> >>>> 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
> >>> since some are behaving incongruent with the mission of the
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
Global Board Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders