[Owasp-leaders] OWASP Board decision that I don't agree with

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Sun Jan 5 23:38:47 UTC 2014


Hi Gustavo,

following the conversation here, I have seen so far the following
proposals from community members: 

a) offer the training at the RSA conference unchanged under the brand of
OWASP
b) offer the training at the RSA conference unchanged under the brand of
OWASP and OWASP makes a public statement that OWASP thinks weakening
crypto is a bad idea. (personal note: btw. RSA should have no problem
with that as they officially deny any such activities...)
c) give the training as individuals and not as OWASP (not sure whether
that would at all be possible at this point)
d) try to move to a different venue (not sure whether that would be
possible or financially viable)
e) cancel the training.

Any more proposals? Anything I missed?

As best would be to have as few options as possible and only realistic
ones, we should check with Sarah whether c and d are realistic at all,
as we could then reduce the choice to between a/b and e.
Or in the form of two choices:
1. "Should OWASP give a developer training at the RSA conference?"  -
Choice: Yes/No
2. Should OWASP make a public statement to the effect that
subverting/weakening crypto is a bad idea. - Choice: Yes/No

Thanks and all the best, Tobias


Tobias Gondrom
OWASP Global Board Member



On 05/01/14 22:50, L. Gustavo C. Barbato wrote:
> Dinis,
>
>   That's what I am talking about. Perhaps, my english is not good
> enough to be understood.
>
>    The question would be simple with only two possible answers, Yes or
> No: "Should OWASP participate on RSA's conference?"
>
> Thanks,
> Gustavo.
>
> On 05/01/2014, at 20:43, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org
> <mailto:dinis.cruz at owasp.org>> wrote:
>
>> I think a vote would be good , but the key is making sure the
>> question(s) are neutral and balanced (ie the outcome of the vote is
>> very dependent on how the question(s) are asked)
>>
>> And as I said many times before, the Center of gravity for OWASP
>> should be with its leaders (and community) and not with the board, so
>> a vote is a good way to make sure the leader's voice is heard (on
>> related topic I also think that votes should be 'on the record' and
>> public). Note : if we are going to have a thread about voting, its
>> better to change the email thread subject
>>
>> On 5 Jan 2014 22:36, "L. Gustavo C. Barbato" <lgbarbato at owasp.org
>> <mailto:lgbarbato at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Have you ever heard about plesbicite?
>>
>>     This discussion is one example: we have given power to board
>>     members to take decision on behalf of our community. So if they
>>     want to present, in your belief, they can go ahead without this
>>     useless thread discussion.
>>
>>     However, I dont believe this is useless , but a very strategic
>>     decision with several point of views already presented here.
>>
>>     That's why I am advocating that we vote as a plebiscite process
>>     where board members have the same Power as everybody else here.
>>
>>     Gustavo.
>>
>>     On 05/01/2014, at 15:59, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou
>>     <konstantinos at owasp.org <mailto:konstantinos at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     This kind of democracy might have worked in ancient Athens (with
>>>     pros and cons) but nowadays we have a BoD and a CEO for such
>>>     kind of decisions.
>>>
>>>     Kostas
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Sunday, January 5, 2014, L. Gustavo C. Barbato wrote:
>>>
>>>         Keeping discussing philosophy and high ideals, we will never
>>>         reach a consensus in the time frame we need, so let's let
>>>         democracy wins the debay.
>>>
>>>         On 05/01/2014, at 11:38, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>>         A key differentiator when we did this free training at
>>>>         AppSecUSA in Austin and LASCON 2013 is that it was 100%
>>>>         free and open to all.  No conference pass was required to
>>>>         participate.  Since that is not the case here, and since
>>>>         the training is only open to RSA attendees, then I think
>>>>         this demonstrates a much closer tie between OWASP and RSA
>>>>         than I would like to see.  I like the idea of approaching
>>>>         BSides SF and seeing if maybe they would be interested in
>>>>         hosting this training for free for the community at large. 
>>>>         If we can do that, then I think its the true win here as we
>>>>         get the visibility to satisfy our mission and we remove the
>>>>         negative stigma of being associated with RSA.
>>>>
>>>>         I would diaagree, however, that visibility is only a means
>>>>         to an end.  Since its in our mission statement, all of our
>>>>         activities and prioritizations are required, by law, to
>>>>         follow that.  And if we ever reach the point where
>>>>         everyone, everywhere, knows about application security,
>>>>         then we can close up shop and move on.  There is no
>>>>         compromising the end goal here because, per the mission
>>>>         statement, visibility is the end goal.  I'm sorry if that
>>>>         compromises your principals Sastry but its the truth about
>>>>         OWASP as a non-profit.
>>>>
>>>>         ~josh
>>>>
>>>>         On Jan 5, 2014 12:32 AM, "Sastry Tumuluri"
>>>>         <sastry.tumuluri at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             1. The immediate focus on RSAC:
>>>>             No matter how we rationalize, the fact is that we
>>>>             (OWASP) have
>>>>             options. This, at worst, is one missed opportunity. So
>>>>             let us not, in
>>>>             our relentless pursuit of VISIBILITY, compromise on
>>>>             principles.
>>>>
>>>>             VISIBILITY is a means to an end (better security, more
>>>>             secure software
>>>>             -- which in itself is likely a never-ending activity).
>>>>             Let us not
>>>>             compromise on the end-goal while chasing the means.
>>>>
>>>>             Short term gains (of reaching some developers) will
>>>>             easily be lost if
>>>>             we take the low road. Even 300 more "aware" developers
>>>>             are for naught
>>>>             if, based on RSAC acceptance, just one more company
>>>>             feels that the
>>>>             risks of trucking with NSA/GCHQ and compromising underlying
>>>>             foundations are acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>             Is it our job/charter to "convey such a message"? I
>>>>             believe so.
>>>>             Conversely, can we say "we merely advocate tech
>>>>             principles and
>>>>             educate... this is not for us"? If we want to be
>>>>             treated as a
>>>>             responsible member of the ecosystem, we can't duck like
>>>>             that.
>>>>
>>>>             Related, but a slightly different perspective: Robert
>>>>             Graham's blog
>>>>             post on this:
>>>>             http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/01/why-we-have-to-boycott-rsa.html
>>>>
>>>>             2. The tough world of principles, ethics, etc:
>>>>             Jim Manico raised a very pertinent point regarding
>>>>             sending mixed
>>>>             messages (=> recognition-of and consistency-in-applying our
>>>>             principles). It isn't easy.
>>>>
>>>>             Funding goes to the very heart of neutrality and
>>>>             ethics. So it is not
>>>>             so tangential, after all. I know we shouldn't accept
>>>>             funds or even
>>>>             projects from NSA, GCHQ, etc. Whether DHS is to be
>>>>             painted by the same
>>>>             brush, I don't know (depends on internal structure,
>>>>             etc.). Let the
>>>>             more knowledgeable people decide on this.
>>>>
>>>>             Chasing "quick results at any cost" and then splitting
>>>>             hairs on
>>>>             legality and rationalizations will not paint us black;
>>>>             but will surely
>>>>             park us firmly in the gray areas of ethics. Is that
>>>>             what we want?
>>>>
>>>>             Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>             ==Sas3==
>>>>
>>>>             On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Josh Sokol
>>>>             <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>             > My apologies in the delay in responding to this.
>>>>              I've been on the road all
>>>>             > day today and will be slow to respond tomorrow as well.
>>>>             >
>>>>             > First off, let me admit that while my term hadn't
>>>>             officially begun yet, I am
>>>>             > one of the Board members who encouraged Jim and Eoin
>>>>             to move forward with
>>>>             > the training.  My rationale for this was simple;
>>>>             OWASP's mission is to make
>>>>             > software security visible, so that individuals and
>>>>             organizations worldwide
>>>>             > can make informed decisions about true software
>>>>             security risks.  The core of
>>>>             > this statement being VISBILITY.  We need to find and
>>>>             take advantage of as
>>>>             > many ways as possible to raise the visibility of
>>>>             security risks.  Our
>>>>             > mission says nothing about making political
>>>>             statements.  It says nothing
>>>>             > about ethical business practices.  Our mission can
>>>>             certainly 
>>>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>     OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org <mailto:OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140105/b0ca0163/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list