[Owasp-leaders] In Samantha's words: "Why I resigned my role at OWASP"
sarah.baso at owasp.org
Mon Jun 16 15:50:57 UTC 2014
Just to clarify things on my end - As I have stated in my email to the
board and community, I am leaving to stay home with the baby... not because
of Samantha or any other reason.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> 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
>> 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 (
>>> On 16 June 2014 14:12, <martin.knobloch at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> 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,
>>>> 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-Leaders mailing list
>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
sarah.baso at owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders