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

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Mon Jan 6 09:51:50 UTC 2014


Really well described Tobias, that is a spot on analysis

Nobody here is saying that owasp should support candidate X Y or Z. What
some of us believe is that OWASP should encourage the debate of political
issues (ie issues that affect government policies) and have public opinions
on key issues that affect Application Security

In fact the irony is that in our 'politically charged world' even 'not
having an option' is 'playing politics' , since that is an tacit acceptance
of the status quo
On 5 Jan 2014 23:23, "Tobias" <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Jim,
>
> reading your link, *our non-profit status does in fact _not_ forbid us
> from getting involved in politics as in advocating our mission and making
> public statements about it. *
>
> There is a huge difference between political campaigning on behalf of any
> candidate for elective public office (which is forbidden for non-profit)
> and general advocacy and politics aka an organisation making a public
> statement or advocating that certain things are in line with our OWASP
> mission and a really good idea and others are against the OWASP mission aka
> a really bad idea.
>
> For anyone interested, I recommend to follow and read the link that you
> sent, it specifies that a political campaign in the sense of the IRS is:
> "What is a political campaign? In general, the IRS rule refers to campaigns
> between people who are running for offices in public elections. These can
> include: candidates running for president of the U.S.; candidates running
> for governor; candidates running for mayor; and also candidates for lower
> elected offices such as school board officials, city supervisors, and
> county trustees."
>
> And in fact your article explicitly states that: *"Your organization can
> engage in legislative advocacy and issue-related advocacy, as long as it
> follows certain rules and steers clear of political campaigning. "* (for
> those interested in what these certain rules are: that a non-profit does
> not have “substantial part” of its overall activities relates to
> influencing legislation or carrying on propaganda. Roughly anything under
> 5% of the overall budget is considered not substantial, while expenditures
> of above 15% would probably be considered substantial - e.g. 5% would be
> with our current budget size spending of more than USD 100.000(!) on
> lobbying....)
>
> We are free and safe to advocate our mission and to make public statements
> to communicate our mission. (And nobody would want for OWASP to politically
> campaign for the next candidate for presidency, governor, mayor or
> political party of any country.)
>
> All the best, Tobias
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/01/14 21:02, Jim Manico wrote:
>
>  OWASP _should_ get involved in politics -
>
>
> Our non profit status strictly forbids us from being involved in
> political campaigns and more. This is a requirement of getting huge
> tax breaks. If we do want to be more involved in politics we would
> need to change the organizational structure and drop the non-profit
> status.
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
>
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode(808) 652-3805
>
>  On Jan 5, 2014, at 1:05 AM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OWASP _should_ get involved in politics -
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140106/8ece9557/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list