[Owasp-leaders] Proposal: OWASP Committees 2.0

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Wed May 28 17:32:47 UTC 2014

I think this is a great idea and it brings back something that has worked
quite well in the past for OWASP (i.e. community-driven groups working on a
particular topic)

There is a really nice suggestion site
https://www.google.com/moderator/?authuser=1#16/e=2130f2 where I just added

*"Great! An area that I would ask for stronger guidelines is on the
'Membership' part. There should be a very fast turn-around for inactive
Committee participants. A key problem we had in the past was that it was
very easy to join but hard to leave"*


*"I don't agree 100% with this comment 'The committees should be assigned,
not to a broad area of operations, but to the strategic goals as set by the
Board. ' I think the focus of the committees should come from the OWASP
leaders that have energy"*

So please vote for the ideas that are there already and add more to it


On 28 May 2014 02:31, Sarah Baso <sarah.baso at owasp.org> wrote:

> OWASP Leaders and Community Members -
> TLDR - Please review, comment and vote on the new committee structure by
> June 9, 2014. Wiki page <https://owasp.org/index.php/Committees_2.0>outlining new structure for the committees, and google
> moderator link <https://www.google.com/moderator/?authuser=1#16/e=2130f2>for input and voting.
> Details:
> OWASP is an organization that has been built on collaboration and
> community involvement. I also hope that OWASP is an organization that can
> support and innovation - encouraging the community to try new things and be
> willing to look frequently and assess what is working and what isn't.
> We have grown to the point where an improved process needs to be
> implemented where our leaders can lead and those who wish to participate
> can do so easily and productively.
> In 2008, the Foundation created committees.  These committees were
> successful in that they pushed forward some much needed guidelines and put
> some structure around areas that were undefined.
> Unfortunately, over time, there were built in flaws with the committee
> design that created roadblocks and eventually their failure.
> We would like to propose a revamped committee structure based on a solid
> foundation that provides the voice and opportunities to the community.
>  This structure will depend on a high level of community engagement.
> The primary vision is high level committees that focus not on operational
> issues, but on the strategic goals as determined by the board of directors.
> Below is a side by side comparison of the flaws with the 2008 committees
> and a proposal for redesign and implementation of a fresh 2014 model.
>  ' *2008 committee challenges**2014 committee proposal**Platform*
> The platform used to “manage” committee activity was limited to the wiki.
> This required committee chairs to maintain their wiki page and required
> potential members to complete cumbersome wiki pages to apply for the
> committee. Both of these activities, over time, became overlooked.
> Information was not updated and often potential members were ignored.
> OWASP has consolidated its operational platform to work on the Salesforce
> platform. The overhauled operational platform provide the staff with the
> tools to better facilitate committees (not run them) with the ability to
> track members, member activities, topics, and needs in an open to all
> format. Additionally, this platform provides a place for committee and
> subcommittee engagement to occur.
> *Structure*
> Committees became an all or nothing group. This created meetings with
> months of planning and no real activity. Also, committee members were asked
> to participate in all of the committee activities and not just the tasks
> (or sub activity) that interested them or that they had time for.
> The 2014 committee platform proposes a tiered structure that would allow
> the committee to exist at a high level, and have “sub committees” or “task
> forces” to be created under the umbrella of the global committee.
> *Membership*
> Initially, the committee members were recruited for a one year term. The
> committee members were to elect a committee chair who would serve as the
> point of contact for the committee. Evolution of the committee led to the
> perception of “lifetime” terms and members who “signed up” but never
> participated and felt like they could never leave.
> The tiered committee structure allows a smaller group to lead or steer
> initiatives and sub committees. The leadership group will commit to a one
> year term, and the initiatives within the group will be task oriented and
> therefore have a deadline and a defined end point for the participants. An
> open call for participants for each new task or initiative allows for
> individuals who are no longer interested in participation to step away.
> *Leadership*
> The selected committee chairs became unwilling recruits who stepped in out
> of necessity or default. As such, much of the “objectives” of the
> committees fell to the staff to complete.
> A key core committed group driving initiatives with variable lengths will
> allow the global community to participate in the activities that interest
> them for the length of time that it may require.
> *Committee Purpose*
> For some of the committees and committee chairs, the lack of a defined
> objective was a huge roadblock. The committees were created and provided a
> very broad segment. This lack of mission created disjointed efforts.
> The committees should be assigned, not to a broad area of operations, but
> to the strategic goals as set by the Board. By collaborating as a global
> community with the opportunity to define a roadmap for a goal will allow
> for the committee members to be successful and to see progress.
> *Interaction*
> The 2008 committees worked, for the most part, independently of each
> other. This often created duplicate or even conflicting efforts leading to
> frustration.
> The core leadership group will work as one unit. Each leader will chose a
> particular goal, and the leaders will monitor each other and interact on a
> regular basis to develop the initiatives and task force groups.
> *Board Involvement*
> The 2008 committees were assigned a board member to provide leadership and
> oversight. This created some reluctance from committee members to be daring
> and definitive.
> The committees should not be managed by the board of directors. The board
> needs to show trust and encouragement for the community to experiment and
> to be successful. Board members can not participate as core committee
> members, but can provide input and participate in any of the task force
> initiatives as a community member.
> *Board Approval*
> The final decline of the committees occurred when a committee would bring
> a proposal to the board and have the board veto the committee chairs and
> members. This sent the message to the chairs that the efforts they were
> putting into the committees was done in vain.
> Proposals brought forward from the committees should be voted upon by the
> community (or community leadership). The community decision should be
> considered valid. Implementing a process for a trial period of 6 months to
> a year would be sufficient to determine if it was beneficial for the
> organization. This also reinstates the sense of ownership the community has
> in the organization.
> *Rollout:*
> Community Comment and voting period - *May 27 - June 9, 2014 *
> Hold an open nomination period until June 30 to establish the core
> committee leadership team.  The leadership team will review the 2014
> strategic goals and establish an initial set of initiatives to work towards
> the goals, “cross pollinating” ideas and successes.
> The community will have the opportunity to “sign up” for an initiative or
> sub committee and begin work.
> Leverage the improved operational platform of the foundation which allows
> for open discussions, participation, and visibility while allowing the
> staff to provide metrics on participation and progress.
> The process will be reviewed and modified as needed in 6 months.
> Wiki page outlining structure for the committees 2.0
>  https://owasp.org/index.php/Committees_2.0<https://owasp.org/index.php/Committees_2.0>
> Most importantly - *We want your input!* not just leaders, or individuals
> with an owasp.org email, anyone in the community is encouraged to
> participate in this poll of both the general idea of the committees 2.0 and
> particular features of the new model. *Participate here*<https://www.google.com/moderator/?authuser=1#16/e=2130f2> -
> anyone can view, you must be logged into a google account (not just
> owasp.org) to vote or submit a suggestion.
> Thanks and looking forward to here input, improvements, missing
> information.
> Sarah Baso
> --
> Executive Director
> OWASP Foundation
> sarah.baso at owasp.org
> +1.312.869.2779
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140528/b168a333/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list