[Owasp-leaders] [Governance] Membership funds

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Wed Jun 12 14:58:15 UTC 2013


Hi Dennis, hi all,

actually just to be precise, only 21 projects have a budget as of:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Atu4kyR3ljftdEdQWTczbUxoMUFnWmlTODZ2ZFZvaXc&output=html

And to add and subtract from various budgets should not be the biggest
challenge.

Some of the questions I am concerned about is to find out whether
certain chapters had any activity in their account or whether the money
has been dormant for a long time.
So some questions I might have to better understand the situation:
- how many of our chapters have actually made at least 1 reimbursement
request within the last 12 months?
(is the process too cumbersome, or are some of the funds just too low;
e.g. some budgets USD20 may not get you very far...)
- do we have "inactive" chapters that still run a budget accounts?

I can understand the bucket approach, equally I am a bit concerned
because I like the grassroots component to give resources to chapters
and projects, because that is where a lot of our activities happen and
our volunteers are. And honestly as a chapter lead to know I can plan an
event and possibly fly in a speaker without red tape is quite
encouraging. The center is there to support and obviously needs its own
budget, but am hesitant to concentrate _all_ resources into the center
or in buckets.

One general approach for me would be to align buckets with revenue
generating activities (chapter meetings, AppSecs, projects). That way we
invest to maximize utility for the community and public. That would mean
chapters should still have budgets.

Just my 5cents.

Best regards, Tobias



On 12/06/13 02:56, Dennis Groves wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 9:40, Sarah Baso wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
> I think it makes sense from an operations stand point as well because
> there would be less to manage; if all the money was designated for
> 'community development' and perhaps as many as a dozen active
> participants were drawing from that bucket - you still have much less
> work than carving it up into 193 chapters and 158 projects and
> managing each like a separate bank account.
>
> Dennis



More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list