[Owasp-leaders] [Governance] Membership funds
sarah.baso at owasp.org
Tue Jun 11 16:40:50 UTC 2013
I agree that this is an ok approach that would make it much easier for
projects and chapters to access funds. So where would the funding for these
"buckets" come from? Should we eliminate some of the other funding
designations in the budget?
Open to ideas...
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>>> [Dennis Groves](http://about.me/**dennis.groves<http://about.me/dennis.groves>),
>>> [Email me](mailto:[email protected]**owasp.org <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
>> Governance mailing list
>> Governance at lists.owasp.org
> Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum.
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.owasp.org
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
sarah.baso at owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders