[Owasp-leaders] Membership funds

Jon Molesa rjmolesa at owasp.org
Fri Jun 7 00:43:22 UTC 2013


https://www.wepay.com/developer/platform/authorization


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Jon Molesa <rjmolesa at owasp.org> wrote:

> Same issue here Tony.
>
> WePay looks like a good scratch for this itch. Each chapter could have
> it's own account and associated visa/mastercard. They have an excellent
> api. OWASP (the parent) could create an account with sub-accounts for
> chapter and allocate the funds into each's account. Then leaders can spend
> the funds as necessary.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> My biggest issue has more to do with having to foot the bill for anything
>> the chapter wants to do and then deal with reimbursement requests. If there
>> was an easier way for the chapter to spend money without me having to
>> explain to my wife to chill out, am getting reimbursed. The secondary issue
>> is I completely fail at filing reimbursement requests for the chapter so
>> never wind up touching the chapter funds even though I feed everyone each
>> quarter. Yeah, I need more people than myself running the chapter but I
>> haven't done a good job recruiting help. (Have a co-leader but he's swamped
>> with grad school)
>>
>> -Tony
>> OWASP Orlando Chapter Leader
>> On Jun 6, 2013 5:53 PM, "Eoin" <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a great idea assuming people feel they can spend the
>>> funds and also generate more by soliciting membership to keep the funding
>>> topped up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eoin Keary
>>> Owasp Global Board
>>> +353 87 977 2988
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 16:56, 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130606/1a1147a9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list