[Owasp-leaders] OWASP Project Sponsorship - What Model does OWASP want?
vanderaj at owasp.org
Wed Oct 9 01:17:49 UTC 2013
This is an excellent discussion.
However, although it is fine to have this discussion, I think there is
"what can (project leaders)|(or the project)|(or OWASP) spend raised
sponsorship money on".
I've made it perfectly plain over many years that for whatever reason, I
don't get time off to do my work at OWASP, so sponsorship for me is about
taking a sabbatical to work on projects. The idea that the only people who
can get paid for OWASP projects are not the people writing them is insane.
Our project is big enough to support a few key individuals to get things
really moving, a la Linux Foundation and their fellowships.
I'd like for "how can projects spend their money" to be a separate question
to the proposed model question.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Michael Coates <michael.coates at owasp.org>wrote:
> *TLDR -* We want leaders to debate various project sponsorship models
> (update as necessary) and vote on the one they support in the upcoming
> annual elections (Oct 14 -25).
> *More Info*
> Project sponsorship and branding is an item that we've been working on at
> the board for quite some time. Through discussion we've realized there is
> not a single right model for OWASP. Instead there is a spectrum of
> approaches (decentralized decisions on branding vs centralized, logos or no
> logos, project sponsorship or foundation sponsorship etc). Each of these
> items have their own positives and negatives.
> However, one thing is clear. For OWASP to scale and grow we need to pick
> an approach and document it. This way everyone understands what the rules
> are, how to bring in new contributors and how to correctly acknowledge
> supporters & contributors.
> We'd like the OWASP community to cast a vote for the model they believe is
> best for OWASP. Before we vote on the issue we also want our community to
> help identify considerations for each model. What are the positives and
> negatives? Is there another approach that we should consider? Is there
> something we're not considering?
> The 3 approaches are listed here in the wiki
> Please update and add additional considerations. Please don't remove
> existing text. Instead use the comment section at the bottom to explain
> areas you may disagree with.
> Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders