[Owasp-leaders] [Governance] Membership funds

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Tue Jun 11 16:34:45 UTC 2013


Yap, there have been lots of cases where projects and chapter leaders didn't have access to the funds they would like to have.

The best solution (in my point of view) is to have a generic 'chapter' and/or 'project' funds bucket that can be used by project/chapter leaders (just like Jason Johnson is using the GSD funds to help his OWASP Hive project).

That will make it easier to use Owasp available funds/resources, remove the 'have to contact xyz chapter and ask/beg for the money' and empower the chapter/project leader to 'Get Stuff Done'

Dinis Cruz

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:11, Lucas Ferreira <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org> wrote:

> Yes, I can. It happened to me a couple of times in the past and is the main reason I keep saying that projects need to have better access to OWASP funds.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lucas
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Tom Brennan <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Easy solution -- if someone needs money for something that drives the mission they should first contact there local chapter(s) to crowd source support
>> 
>> How much do you need?
>> What will it be used for?
>> When do you need it by?
>> 
>> Lets not complicate the situation if community members need funds to help a OWASP effort that is inline with the mission TALK with people -  I can not find ANY documented examples of people being turned down for anything at OWASP can 
>> you?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> On 7 Jun 2013, at 6:09, Eoin wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's not a good idea and after meeting Seba last night in Belgium, he feels the same way.
>>>> I'd suggest we remove this motion and replace with another motion...
>>>> Pretty much the idea is "want money? Got money, Got owasp"
>>>> It might be an idea to take onboard the various solutions and weed out pros and cons and make a decision. Not everyone shall be happy with this but we are in the business of "the mission" not making people smile :))
>>> 
>>> As I said before I agree with this motion. I also agree with the intentions, but a more comprehensive plan needs to be developed and debated so that it is fair to all parties involved, reduces bureaucracy and enables participation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dennis
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> [Dennis Groves](http://about.me/dennis.groves), MSc
>>> [Email me](mailto:dennis.groves at owasp.org) or [schedule a meeting](http://goo.gl/8sPIy).
>>> 
>>>> "Unless someone like you...cares a whole awful lot...nothing is going to
>>>> get better...It's not." -- The Lorax
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Governance mailing list
>>> Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Governance mailing list
>> Governance at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.
> _______________________________________________
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20130611/3ff23aa8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list