[Owasp-leaders] OWASP Project Sponsorship - What Model does OWASP want?
michael.coates at owasp.org
Wed Oct 9 21:08:27 UTC 2013
I noticed we haven't had many emails on this topic. Are people happy with
the three options? I'd like to make sure we have the positives and
negatives fully captured.
If we're good then the following will be added to the election ballot.
OWASP is defining our project sponsorship and branding model. Which of the
following model do you want for OWASP? The voice of the community will
decide this issue.
Full information and and details for each option is listed here:
The additional information covers many more elements of each option and
you're strongly encouraged to review.
Option 1: *Projects can be sponsored. Project leaders decide all items
including how all contributors are recognized, location of logos, criteria
for logos, etc.
Option 2: *Projects can be sponsored. Standard process across OWASP
projects for items such as **how all contributors are recognized, **location
of logos, criteria for logos, etc.
Option 3:* **Projects can not be sponsored. Organizations can support the
foundation and the foundation can support projects through programs (summer
of code, project reboot etc). OWASP foundation supporters have their logo
on a dedicated OWASP foundation page.
Michael Coates | OWASP | @_mwc
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:02 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders