[Owasp-leaders] Please provide a status update to the membership

Timur 'x' Khrotko (owasp) timur at owasp.org
Wed Oct 15 12:36:56 UTC 2014


I fully support Andrew's initiative if the number of membership glitches is
significant.
I agree that the formal rules should be suspended in an agreed manner if
the harm to the votes of those who believed they can vote is significant.

(My honorary membership was not registered last year within similar
circumstances but that was not a significant failure for the community))

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Andrew Muller <andrew.muller at owasp.org>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Andrew van der Stock <vanderaj at owasp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Michael and the Board,
>>
>> I write to you formally to request a status update on the global OWASP
>> Board of Directors election process, in particular, I implore the
>> current Board to take affirmative action to investigate and manage a
>> resolution to the technical hitches in membership and balloting, and
>> if necessary delay the election, so that all eligible members can
>> vote. There is no activity on the Board list to address this issue,
>> and this, too, needs to be addressed.
>>
>> Members need to have trust of the integrity of the balloting
>> (enfranchisement) and voting processes. There are rules posted
>> regarding the process and deadlines, and for at least some (and
>> possibly many) members, these deadlines have been missed by the OWASP
>> Foundation. There is no current membership list. Members have expired
>> and not been renewed or processed and have missed out on receiving
>> their vote to the election. It is entirely possible that some of the
>> candidates, through no fault of their own, are not in good standing.
>> We just don't know.
>>
>> The only semi-official message in relation to my queries so far is
>> "please don't be inflammatory". That is simply not good enough. I am
>> not sledging the ops team - that is not my intent - but I am saying
>> there is an critical issue and it is not being managed or communicated
>> properly, and that requires Board oversight.
>>
>> In Australia, we recently had to send an entire state back to re-vote
>> their senate because our electoral commission lost 1300 votes, which
>> was more votes than the winning margin. I don't ever recall any open
>> source project or Foundation ever having this type of problem before.
>> I hope that it's a small issue that can be addressed in a timely and
>> comprehensive fashion.
>>
>> Please as a matter of urgency, please work out and communicate with
>> all the members, (and not just those on the leaders list):
>>
>> * What is the Board's position on challenges to the election,
>> postponing or delaying the vote to get the membership and balloting
>> right, or doing a re-run?
>>
>> * Were renewal notices sent out to expiring and expired members in a
>> timely fashion to make the September 30 renewal eligibility deadline?
>>
>> * If not, will OWASP be e-mailing or making contact with all expired
>> members to see if they wanted to renew and give them a vote in the
>> election? If so, when will this occur? Will it occur by the time
>> voting closes?
>>
>> * Are all current Board candidates in good standing? If not, will the
>> Board reach out to the candidates in question, and offer them back
>> dated honorary membership to comply with the bylaws? Or will they be
>> ineligible to stand?
>>
>> * Are all membership renewals (paid, lifetime, and honorary) submitted
>> prior to September 30 now processed?
>>
>> * If so, is there an up to date membership list that does not date
>> back to April 8, 2014? Can this be added to the OWASP Board 2014
>> elections page?
>>
>> * As the CRM process wasn't working for some time, what steps are the
>> Board putting into place to ensure that it is fixed and monitored for
>> the next election?
>>
>>
>> These questions have to be answered. No answer is simply not an
>> option. I don't mind if you take these on notice and reply in pieces,
>> but please communicate frequently, openly and honestly with us.
>>
>> I know the vote is open until next week, but I feel that even if there
>> are only a handful of members piping up on the Leaders mailing list
>> today, the CRM process has been broken for at least two months, which
>> covers about 15% of members. It may have been broken as far back as
>> April 8 when the membership list was seemingly last generated, which
>> covers around 45-50% of the members.
>>
>> Simply enrolling those who pipe up in one venue misses those who don't
>> hang out on the Leaders list and disenfranchises those who might have
>> wanted a say in OWASP's future. If this is actually a small issue, it
>> should be easy to determine: compare July, August's and September's
>> membership totals with that from the year before. If the totals are
>> reduced, then there is a problem of a known magnitude. But without an
>> accurate and up to date membership list, we cannot determine if there
>> are disenfranchised members or how many have been potentially
>> disenfranchised.
>>
>> I gave the ops team nearly two month's notice that something wasn't
>> right, and stayed in fairly constant communication during that time. I
>> even gave a heads up about my fellow candidates, who I sincerely hope
>> have their membership sorted so OWASP members have a geographically
>> varied and interesting selection of candidates to choose from.
>>
>> I've been here since very nearly the beginning, I don't think I've
>> ever seen such disarray in our internal processes, especially such key
>> processes that directly elect the Board.
>>
>> I implore the Board to take this very seriously. Please communicate
>> clearly and frequently with us on next steps. If the Board or the
>> Foundation needs time - more time than there exists until the end of
>> voting, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to
>> ensure that we have an open, transparent membership and voting system
>> with integrity for a vote to be open to all members, not just those
>> unaffected by the technical glitches. I can't speak for the other
>> candidates, but please ask them too. I'd rather this be done right.
>>
>> I am reachable on +61 451 057 580 if you want a chat, but I am UTC+11,
>> which makes it tricky during US business hours.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> *Andrew Muller*
> Canberra OWASP Chapter Leader
> OWASP Testing Guide Co-Leader
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>

-- 
This message may contain confidential information - you should handle it 
accordingly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20141015/62dc8362/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list