[Owasp-leaders] Membership funds

Konstantinos Papapanagiotou konstantinos at owasp.org
Fri Jun 7 05:52:46 UTC 2013


Kate,

 Do you have a list, or even an estimate, of requests for financial support made from new or small chapters? In general a big or "old" chapter requires much more resources to run than a new one. Also, how do we make sure that funds which you say that are now dormant, don't end up dormant again but in another bucket? Why don't you ask from chapters with a certain balance to donate funds to new chapters? We have done so several times behind the scenes to support our student chapter.

You also have to take into account chapters' idiosyncrasies. For example it's harder for some chapters to get corporate memberships but a lot easier to get individual. Even if the rate is low, ie 5-6 memberships per year which translates to roughly $100, it can make a difference for a chapter (it might sound extreme but u can do a lot of things with $100).

I'm also amazed by the fact that the accounting burden is big. I think that we can find a way to automate this as every member indicates when the membership is paid where he/she want the money to go.

Kostas


On 7 Ιουν 2013, at 4:26, Kate Hartmann <kate.hartmann at owasp.org> wrote:

> Leaders, I would like to chime into this discussion.  I’ve tried to be fairly quiet, with many topics, but I believe there are some issues in this thread that are being missed.
> 
>  
> 
> 1.     The topic of the 40/60 split was resurrected  during the recent staff summit.  As a group, the operational team discussed the pros and cons to the split.  Obviously, there are lots of benefits to the individual chapters in densely populated areas who have active membership. 
> 
> 2.     If you look at the “donation scoreboard” for the chapters and look at the income sources from the “richest” chapters, you will see that – in reality – a small percent of these balances come from individual supporters.  Austin is the closest chapter to being an “exception” of them all:
> 
> Austin:   $1700 from Individual memberships
> 
>             $9926 from AppSec USA and corporate donations
> 
> Minneapolis St Paul - $1186 from Individual Memberships
> 
>             $5938 from corporate memberships and donations
> 
> Sweden - $200 from individual memberships – balance is from AppSec EU 2010
> 
> Los Angeles - $600 from individual memberships
> 
>             $11,000 from corporate supporters and donations
> 
>                         Virginia - $659 from individual memberships
> 
>                                     $3880 from corporate memberships and donations
> 
> 3.     The intention of ending the split for individual memberships is not to PUNISH successful and active chapters, but rather to provide an available pool of financial resources to ENCOURAGE smaller or newer chapters.
> 
> 4.     The proposal is to leave the corporate membership split in place.
> 
>  
> 
> It had been recommended that the foundation simply “donate” seed money to new chapters.  This is a great idea, in theory, but is not financially realistic. 
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal – which has actually been brought up before – is to end the split for individual memberships – leaving corporate membership split and the donation/chapter supporter models in place
> 
>  
> 
> Why? 
> 
>  
> 
> Everyone points to the “stagnant fund” challenge as a main source of contention.  The reality is that while – yes – the Foundation would like to see these funds used to support other global initiatives like project reboots, summits, in person workshops, graphic and marketing investments, and a myriad of other items on the global wish list, the funds have been allocated to the chapters.  The intent was to provide a way for chapters to fund local initiatives and do this with local flair.  As chapter leaders, you know what is of benefit to your local community and how best to spread the mission. 
> 
>  
> 
> There is nothing wrong with “saving” the funds to spend on a future planned activity, but in most cases, these funds remain untouched.  From an operational perspective, the Foundation is not able to access these unused funds to invest in other potential programs.  Additionally, there is much discussion over the long term financial planning for the Foundation.  As a business, we should be investing funds in a manner that would provide a return on the financial balances.  However, much of the balances (all except a few thousand dollars) is allocated to chapters.  These funds need to remain liquid should there be a run on chapter reimbursements.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, the MAIN reason that the operations team resurrected this proposal was to alleviate the accounting burden it has created.  As the org runs on very limited human resources, we need to continuously look at how to most effectively allocate those resources.
> 
>  
> 
> When an individual member allocates to a local chapter through the membership process, we must preform several time consuming tasks to identify and redistribute those funds to the appropriate chapter “bucket”
> 
>  
> 
> Alison has been doing an amazing job with this for the past couple of years.  As the org grows, so does the volume of work.  Operationally, it is difficult to allocate staff time to a task that only accounts for a small percentage of chapter funds.
> 
>  
> 
> Choosing to allocate to “chapters” or to “projects” or to “chapter operational support” requires less than 1/10 of the required operational resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Kate Hartmann
> kate.hartmann at owasp.org
> +1 301-275-9403
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130607/be19a007/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list