[Owasp-leaders] In Samantha's words: "Why I resigned my role at OWASP"

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Mon Jun 16 15:46:28 UTC 2014


So Did Sarah lied when she said she was leaving because of the baby?

You would have to ask Sarah that question.  I have never heard her say
anything to the contrary so maybe this is speculation (without supporting
evidence) or maybe Sarah confided in Samantha something that the rest of us
are unaware of.

Why didn't Samantha mentioned this before? Why now after she quit?

Samantha did file a complaint against Jim with Sarah and Michael, but our
policies imply confidentiality with formal complaints.  At that point in
time, everybody (Jim, Samantha, the Board, and Sarah) agreed that mediation
was the right approach.  When Samantha resigned, that's when all of these
other stories started popping up.  At this point, the complaint has been
handed off to Martin for investigation.

What are the proofs that all these accusations are true until the case
resolves?

There is no evidence to support her accusations.  Even in her formal
complaint against Jim, with the exception of his public criticisms on the
Leaders list, it's all just her word against his.  And to Jim's defense, he
submitted a counter-complaint as well that indicates, to me at least, some
issues on both sides of the fence.

What kind of conclusions, as a volunteer and member of OWASP do I have to
make out of this conflict between the Board vs Samantha?

You are doing an amazing job, Johanna, and the Board is in full support of
your efforts.  Keep doing what you do!  In my opinion, much of this
"conflict" is in Samantha's head and the story keeps changing.  She has no
legal standing for a civil case, and her EEOC complaint is about to be
dismissed as well, so her last action is to try and slander us into
submission.

I have too many questions and I don't see how this helps to build a
community of volunteers.

Please ask your questions.  While some have insisted on taking the high
road and keeping quiet while our lawyers handle things, I'm no longer
content with that.  Samantha wants to drag others into the mud with her so,
frankly, let's get dirty.  As long as it isn't a blatant breach of
confidentiality, I will do my best to answer.

I think if you all wanted to wash the dirty laundry, Samantha and the board
should have spoken a way to do this in front of the community.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly and have expressed my desire
several times to put a formal statement out there as I had a feeling it
would come to this.  Unfortunately, our policies and Code of Ethics make
broad claims about confidentiality, despite the affect on victims unable to
defend themselves or hold their accuser accountable for their actions.  In
addition, much of this is tied up in a legal effort that Samantha
initiated.  Like I said in my previous message, the extortion and blackmail
have failed so now we've resorted to slander.

This all seems very low to me.

This whole situation has had me uneasy for weeks now.  I will never claim
to be a perfect person, but Samantha's EEOC complaint says that I'm
apparently sexist and racist.  I have my opinions, no doubt, but have you
ever seen me make a statement based on someones sex or nationality?  It
hurts me deep to the core that someone feels that way about me.  I've
experienced those types of feelings first-hand and would never want to
impart them on another person.

In general, I think that the "low" that you're talking about is simply due
to the fact that the Board isn't talking about it.  This goes back to the
Code of Ethics and confidentiality as well as the involvement of lawyers
and our Compliance Officer.  We are stuck between a rock and a hard place
and will garner criticism for whichever path we choose.  Personally, I'm
going to stand up for myself and allow you to examine the evidence that
I've put forward for myself and allow you to determine whether what I said
was in line with what you'd expect from me as a Board member.  I make no
apologies for what I said as sometimes even the most difficult
conversations need to be had (case in point).  I will allow others to
determine how much information they are willing to share.  From me, at
least, I'm willing to speak to what I can.

~josh


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:51 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:

> So Did Sarah lied when she said she was leaving because of the baby?
>
> Why didn't Samantha mentioned this before? Why now after she quit?
>
> What are the proofs that all these accusations are true until the case
> resolves?
>
> What kind of conclusions, as a volunteer and member of OWASP do I have to
> make out of this conflict between the Board vs Samantha?
>
>  I have too many questions and I don't see how this helps to build a
> community of volunteers.
>
> I think if you all wanted to wash the dirty laundry, Samantha and the
> board should have spoken a way to do this in front of the community.
>
> This all seems very low to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> well the email Martin mentions below is not the one I re posted on behalf
>> of Samantha. The email Martin talks about is the one Samantha sent to the
>> board and contains the original charges (of which the main ones have been
>> dropped).
>>
>> I didn't shared that email since I was not involved in that thread and
>> did not have direct approval do so also (so I respected the parties wishes
>> involved (including Martin's)).
>>
>> That email was posted on direct request by Samantha, which again she
>> would had done herself if she still had access to her email (and btw, that
>> is something that should be changed, since I don't see why shouldn't
>> Samantha still have access to her OWASP email account (and I would trust
>> her to be sensible in using it)).
>>
>> Finally, if the board takes the 'very dangerous' step of removing this
>> thread from the OWASP Leaders archive (which would be quite a step on the
>> wrong direction), I also posted a copy of it on my blog (
>> http://blog.diniscruz.com/2014/06/in-samanthas-words-why-i-resigned-my.html
>> ).
>>
>> Dinis
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 June 2014 14:12, <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> As Compliant officer, following the OWASP policy, this is what I think
>>> of it:
>>>
>>> The wording in the email from Samantha, made public by Dinis, accusing.
>>> To make public accusations is conflicting with the OWASP policy. Even
>>> more, one point of Samantha's accusation as the policy has been broken
>>> against her. Whereby this a at least evenly if not more serious accusations.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the case filed by Samantha is ongoing. This means to be
>>> proven right or wrong. This email can harm the interest of Samantha in this
>>> case, as can been seen as publicly harassment of members of the board.
>>>
>>> As Dinis is forwarding this as email from Samantha, there is no chance
>>> to probably response to this, as the board is in contact with Samantha via
>>> delegates.
>>>
>>> Last week I have asked Dinis, as friend, not to post anything regarding
>>> this case as this is not helping Samantha, OWASP nor the case.
>>>  I am sorry Dinis to fail following my friendly advice.
>>>
>>> Being personally against all sort of censure, I cannot do other than
>>> advice the board to file this email and remove it from the public list.
>>> Last not least, I ask all not to reply to this email. The case is under
>>> investigation via me as compliance officer and the responsible government
>>> instance. At conclusion of this case, an official report and statement will
>>> be made public.
>>>
>>> With kind regards,
>>> -martin
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>
>>> Sender: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:53:58
>>> To: Eoin Keary<eoin.keary at owasp.org>
>>> Cc: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org<owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] In Samantha's words: "Why I resigned my
>>> role at
>>>         OWASP"
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140616/b65d3801/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list