[Owasp-leaders] Membership funds

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Thu Jun 6 16:57:52 UTC 2013


As a board member, I will vote against *any* attempt to seize these funds from chapters.

I think Sherif's suggestion below is spot-on. I will endeavor to follow up on that suggestion with the board and staff.

Aloha,
- Jim Manico
OWASP Board Member
@Manicode


> I believe what the chapters need is training\guidelines on how to spend
> their funds, how to use the funds to provide better value and increase
> membership.
> Decreasing the amount of funds allocated to Chapters would really be
> short-sighted for the longer term.
> 
> Regards,
> Sherif
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Jon Molesa <rjmolesa at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
>> To be honest, and I know this is kind of lame, but I'm not certain how to
>> access the funds allocated to our chapter. I believe we have to first spend
>> the money and then submit for reimbursement. This tends to be a
>> bit cumbersome depending on the expense. How are clubs determining who with
>> foot the cost while they wait for reimbursement?
>>
>> Perhaps something like WePay.com could be useful to give chapters direct
>> access to their funds?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the solution is to create a chapters generic fund (maybe with 50%
>>> of the current available funds to kickstart it) and let any chapter leader
>>> use those funds
>>>
>>> This would solve just about all current probs.
>>>
>>> We should run this for 6/12 months and see what happens
>>>
>>> My only question is if this should also include all project leaders of if
>>> we need a similar 'generic fund' for Projects
>>>
>>> I don't really care about the percentages, the whole point of this idea
>>> was to empower the OWASP leaders to ACT, to experiment, to create, to
>>> deliver.
>>>
>>> The available money should go to who wants to spend it.
>>>
>>> And since all expenses are done in an open way, we will very quickly
>>> create a list of 'ok, lets not do THAT again' :)
>>>
>>> Dinis Cruz
>>>
>>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 15:27, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jon Molesa
>> rjmolesa at owasp.org
>>
>> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
>> oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist
>> and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses  and
>> you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed
>> ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it
>> out aynawy.
>>
>> ... so please excuse me for every typo in the email above.
>>
>> Reference: https://github.com/Ettercap/ettercap/blob/master/README
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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