[Owasp-leaders] Membership funds

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Thu Jun 6 18:47:05 UTC 2013


Hi Sarah

Regarding sponsoring of projects, can I just submit funds to a project?
The project leader will be responsible for managing those funds I assume?

regards

Johanna


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Lucas Ferreira <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>wrote:

> Hello Sarah,
>
> here are my ideas on funding:
>
> 1. Instead of simply removing the split, there should be a time limit to
> spend the funds. As an example, funds not used for more than a year would
> be made available to projects, other chapters or the foundation. I think
> there was a proposal like this from the Chapter's committee.
>
> 2. we need to have better ways of funding projects, not only chapters.
> Projects need to get the same level of support as chapters.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucas
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:27 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130606/d647d9da/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list