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

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sun Jan 20 22:32:37 UTC 2013


I agree, use any open license you prefer.

And here are the OWASP recommendations from the project committee if you are so inclined:

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Licenses

Aloha,
Jim

> I agree with you that they should be allowed to choose the open source
> license they prefer.
> 
>  
> 
> -Dave
> 
>  
> 
> From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Wetter
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 5:58 AM
> To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] [Committees-chairs] [Global_chapter_committee]
> [Global_conference_committee] [owasp-board] Re: 2012 Speaker Agreement
> Update
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> as I am just putting a draft for the CfP for AppSecEU 2013 together, I am
> just wondering
> whether anything has happening since the last discussion.
> 
> Specifically there's the question under which licence the slides would be
> published.
>  IMO it would make sense that a participant is free to choose any CC-(/BY)-*
> license. Right now
> all published slides don't have any license if I understand this correctly.
> So worst case is reader
> of slides thinks its cc-zero and reusing that w/o attribution of any kind
> for his/her purposes maybe
> selling it has his invention, author thinks it's  cc-by-nc-nd. 
> 
> Another point: Published slides should not contain any copyrighted
> materials. In a lot of countries
> that might cause legal and financial trouble for OWASP. IMO for shorter
> terms it is helpful that the 
> speaker agreement is just pointing this out in order to avoid most common
> mistakes.
> 
> 
> Best,  Dirk
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/25/2012 01:52 PM, Tom Brennan wrote:
> 
> Did this thread result in a updated speaker agreement or just a discussion
> about it?
> 
> Conferences / Chapters committee owns this - please advise of your
> understanding and URL to current agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 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 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 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 volunteers 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 Government and other submitters) hence if the
> preso sucks... It still sucks.  
> 
>  
> 
> The agreement is what I am changeling and asking the committees 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), 510-872-2187 (cell)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:13:22 -0500
> To: Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
> Cc: "owasp-board at owasp.org" <owasp-board at owasp.org>,
> "committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org" <committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org>,
> global_conference_committee <global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org>,
> global_chapter_committee Committee
> <global_chapter_committee at lists.owasp.org>, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org>
> Subject: Re: [Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee]
> [owasp-board] Re: [Committees-chairs] 2012 Speaker Agreement Update
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with what Jason said.  I see no reason why a person should not be
> able to include a company logo in a slide deck regardless of whether they
> are a corporate member or not.  My $0.02:
> 
> * If the event has a presentation template, then corporate logos should be
> limited to only the "About Me" page of the presentation.
> 
> ~josh
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> 
> I think these are reasonable changes except the no-logo on the "about me"
> slide.  I think that's fine if we put a boundry on the size.  The GCC is in
> the final process of selecting a new presentation template, so this will be
> easy to add.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
> I am happy with vendor logo as long as content isn't a vendor pitch or
> vendor bespoke (ip) and covers off an issue which is in the open  body of
> knowledge.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Eoin Keary 
> 
> BCC Risk Advisory
> 
> Owasp Global Board
> 
> +353 87 977 2988 <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 27 Mar 2012, at 16:13, Jason Li <jason.li at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
> Agreed on the use of the template. 
> 
>  
> 
> What's the purpose of the restriction on the company logo? 
> 
>  
> 
> Is it an attempt to spur corporate membership? Is it meant to remove the
> "vendor"-ness of a talk?
> 
>  
> 
> If the former, I think it actually comes across as off-putting and might
> have the opposite effect... If the latter, then the inclusion of the company
> logo if and only if they are an OWASP supporter seems overly restrictive
> IMHO in comparison to the goal. 
> 
>  
> 
> What about updating the template to include a specific place and limited
> small size for a logo and mandating the use of the template? That would
> limit how much a presenter could plaster their logo across a presentation.
> 
>  
> 
> -Jason
> 
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Committee(s);
> 
> Today OWASP utilizes a Speaker Agreement that outlines the rules for
> compensation of speakers, required templates, audio/visual, vulnerabilities
> disclosure and a laundry list of other terms.
> 
> The Document:  https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Speaker_Agreement
> 
> With the upcoming long list of AppSec<Regional>, AppSec<Global> and chapter
> events  globally happening weekly enforcement of this policy or event
> policing of this policy is difficult however the spirit of the speaker
> agreement in keeping OWASP pure to technical, 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> Committees-chairs mailing list
> Committees-chairs at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/committees-chairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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