[Owasp-leaders] Membership funds

psiinon psiinon at gmail.com
Thu Jun 6 14:47:51 UTC 2013


Not sure all of the funds should go - for new chapters it can take a while
to build up enough money to be useful.
But I'd be happy with a cut off - eg if you have more than X funds for over
a year then 1/2 the amount above that will be creamed off...

Cheers,

Simon


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Jon Passki <jon.passki at owasp.org> wrote:

> I'm in full agreement with Josh. As a member I renew because I know some
> funds go to the local chapter. There are more proactive ways to manage
> budgets than a draconian total slash of a budget.
>
> Jon
>
> On Jun 6, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> Eoin (and others) -
>
> I have tried to capture some of the comments received on the board list
> about this below to get the conversation up to speed. Thanks to everyone
> for your constructive input so far (and sorry in advance if I missed anyone.
>
>
> *Eoin Keary *
> Maybe richer chapters get a sliding scale %
> This will encourage the dormant funds to be used.
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Tom Brennan*
> Many of the board members are or have been chapter leaders so leading by
> example is important here.  Many staff have no concept of what it takes to
> run a chapter+ this is the purpose of the board list discussion.. Hence
> discuss + talk on the monthly call
>
>  Today there is a split on memberships BOTH individual and corporate
>
> 60/40 Split
>
> $50=$20 per chapter
> $5000=$2000 per chapter
>
> So from the chapters perspective you have two options
>
> 1. Enable local chapters to set there own local membership fee and
> non-profit incorporate status
>
> 2. Change the global percentage 40/60 25/75 or other
>
> Either way the chapters are the local face of owasp in the community and
> that needs to rewarded and highlighted.  "Elimination" was a poor choice
> but clearly has gotten the attention look forward to the board call
>
> Chapters can pack up and become joes InfoSec club but that's not what is
> in the best interest of the community. But this does and will happen with
> to much micromanagement and those interested in robinhood asset seizure ;)
> a balance is needed - starts with a telephone call to the chapter to say
> SPEND IT on the mission <insert spend guidelines>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Eoin Keary*
> I am also against "Eliminate Foundation/Chapter or Project Split on
> Individual Memberships".
>
> *Seba Deleersnyder*
>
> I am against the proposed "Eliminate Foundation/Chapter or Project Split
> on Individual Memberships".
> For 2 reasons:
> 1) chapter are our "feet on the street" and main drivers to push
> individual membership, the current split is a great incentive for the
> chapters
> 2) this provides much needed income for the smaller (or poorer) chapters
>
> I recommend rethinking on how to activate the dormant chapter budget.
>
>    - Focus on the chapters with a high dormant budget
>    - Challenge these chapters on spending / budget plan
>    - Ask if they can adopt one or more chapters or projects and donate
>    some of their budget and support to these
>
>
>
> *Andy Willingham*
> I agree with the point that eliminating the split is a bad idea. If there
> are chapters with large balances then it would be a good idea to talk with
> them individually rather than eliminate the split. I would imagine that
> many chapters have low balances and part of that is because they are in
> small population areas and actually use their funds for chapter activities.
> Chapters that are in a large population areas have lots of companies to get
> to sponsor their meetings and don't need the money to buy pizza or pay for
> a venue. They also usually have a higher percentage of members and
> renewals. Don't punish all for the success of others.*
> *
>
>
> *Josh Sokol*
>
>    - Proposed policy to eliminate individual membership split - 100% to
>    Foundation. * *This needs details fleshed out and discussion, but is a
>    starting point to raise awareness into the large amount of money that is
>    sitting in the chapters and project funds (over $260,000 USD).
>
>
> Seriously, WTF?  Who do you think is out there pimping memberships to
> begin with?  Looking at the current memberships, the Austin Chapter holds
> more membership than any other chapter other than NYC.  Know why?  Because
> we require them for LASCON attendance in order to 1) Add something of value
> to becoming an OWASP member and 2) raise funds for the chapter.  If you
> eliminate the chapter split, then you eliminate all incentive for a chapter
> to promote membership.  This isn't raising awareness about money that is
> sitting dormant.  This is taking away one of the very few methods that
> chapters have to raise money.  Those funds are pretty piddly for the
> chapters that are the problem here, but are huge for the ones that have
> next to nothing in the bank.  If you have an issue with the way (or lack
> of) chapters are spending their money, then why not just take it up with
> the chapters that you take issue with?  If those funds are lying dormant,
> then ask the leaders what they plan on doing with the money.  Make them
> provide a budget.  Don't punish the chapters who have nothing because of a
> few that aren't spending what they have.
>
> Above you say that there's over $260k that is "sitting", but according to
> the Scoreboard there's less than $230k total between both Chapters and
> projects:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Atu4kyR3ljftdEdQWTczbUxoMUFnWmlTODZ2ZFZvaXc&output=html
>
> To give you another perspective on this, out of 196 chapters and projects,
> only 41 (21%) have a balance above $1k.  Only 13 (7%) have a balance above
> $5k.  And only 5 (3%) have a balance above $10k.  The ones with the money
> don't have it due to memberships.  They have it because they either ran a
> conference or found sponsors.  Wanna know who gets affected by this
> proposal?  Pakistan, Paraiba, Kuwait, Florianopolis,
> Curitiba, St. Louis, Campinas, Mexico City, Goiania, Ypisilanti, and the
> list goes on.  These are areas where the chapter leaders are already
> struggling and now you're eliminating what little resources they have.
>
> I continue to be concerned by the way that the Board views the chapters.
> They are the lifeblood of this organization.  They are our ability to reach
> out to areas we couldn't otherwise touch.  They are our future volunteers.
> They host our sponsors.  They run the conferences that generate money for
> OWASP to run.  It's not easy to run a chapter and it's often a completely
> thankless job.  Please don't make the lives of these chapter leaders even
> more difficult by taking away their already limited funding sources.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sarah Baso
> --
> Executive Director
> OWASP Foundation
>
> sarah.baso at owasp.org
> +1.312.869.2779
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello leaders,
>>
>> There is a foundation proposal to remove the split 60/40 from the
>> individual membership dues. 100% if the funding goes to the foundation.
>> The funds are to be used to hire additional staff but also what prompts
>> this is the lack of spending.....
>>
>> Chapters simply are not spending their funds and we have 0000's building
>> up in owasp bank accounts, all ring fenced and going nowhere!!
>>
>> Please share your thoughts with myself and the board.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eoin Keary
>> Owasp Global Board
>> +353 87 977 2988
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130606/910268ac/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list