[Owasp-leaders] RSA conditions on training

Pawel Krawczyk pawel.krawczyk at hush.com
Thu Jan 9 13:59:05 UTC 2014


This could be probably formulated a bit simpler so that you don’t need two compiler passes to understand it :) E.g. 

RSA requested that OWASP should refrain from talking at the BSides conference happening at the same time that it speaks at the RSA conference. OWASP should: 

a)
b)
...

On 9 Jan 2014, at 13:50, Antonio Fontes <antonio.fontes at owasp.org> wrote:

> 
> Simon,
> 
> The question seems to me a bit too demagogically formulated (as opposed
> to the previous poll). It's like asking "whether or not something
> unacceptable should be acceptable".
> 
> Proposition to reformulate:
> 
> "1. In the context of the latest inquiry formulated by RSA (OWASP should
> refrain from talking at the BSides conference happening at the same time
> that it speaks at the RSA conference), what is your opinion?"
> 
> 1) OWASP should refuse the request.
> 2) OWASP should comply with the request but I don't like this.
> 3) OWASP should comply with the request and I think it's fair.
> 4) I don't know.
> 5) The board should decide.
> 
> "2. Based on the answer you gave above, would you like add an additional
> comment?"
> 
> 
> kind regards,
> antonio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> antonio.fontes at owasp.org
> Board Leader - OWASP Geneva
> Board Member - OWASP Switzerland
> 
> On 1/9/2014 2:13 PM, psiinon wrote:
>> When I created the OWASP Polls page I assumed we would only have one
>> poll at a time.
>> 
>> But I think its important to react quickly to changing circumstances,
>> and as I think this is a really important question I've started another
>> OWASP Poll!
>> 
>> Is it acceptable for organizations to place restrictions on OWASP
>> presenting any material at any other events?
>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Polls>
>> 
>> It will run for one week, and once again will only be accessible to
>> people with OWASP email addresses.
>> 
>> As stated on the page (not that anyone reads it;): "If you ask for the
>> form to be shared with you from a non OWASP address then you will just
>> get a canned response explaining why this will not currently happen."
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eoin Keary <eoin.keary at owasp.org
>> <mailto:eoin.keary at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>    RSA require us to stop talks with BsidesSF on relation to setting
>>    something up with them and also I need to issue an public apology to
>>    them over twitter regarding my tweet:
>> 
>>    "@EoinKeary: @owasp are pulling the plug on @RSAConference. Our
>>    training may be delivered via @SecurityBSides"
>> 
>>    in order for OWASP to deliver training at RSA this year.
>> 
>>    I'm not keen on either of these conditions. Thoughts?
>> 
>>    Eoin Keary
>>    Owasp Global Board
>>    +353 87 977 2988 <tel:%2B353%2087%20977%202988>
>> 
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    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 ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> 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
> 


-- 
Pawel Krawczyk
pawel.krawczyk at hush.com +44 7462 166716
CISSP, OWASP



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140109/8dcb5c16/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list