[Owasp-leaders] Project and Chapter Funding Proposal

Richard Greenberg richard.greenberg at owasp.org
Tue Oct 6 01:27:17 UTC 2015


"*Money that is budgeted in this manner, that wasn’t spent during the
calendar year, would be returned back to the OWASP Foundation general
funds."*

Richard Greenberg, CISSP
President, OWASP Los Angeles, www.owaspla.org <http://www.appsecusa.org/>
ISSA Fellow
President, ISSA Los Angeles, www.issa-la.org <http://www.appsecusa.org/>
LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardagreenberg
(424) 261-8111

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

> Richard,
>
> Would you mind walking me through where you are seeing that language?  I
> don't see where you are seeing that you would lose the money that you do
> not spend.  The only place you would potentially lose money is if:
>
> 1) You don't provide a budget.
> 2) As a Leader you request funds outside of your Chapter account, it gets
> approved by the Board and budgeted, and you fail to spend it.
>
> ~josh
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Richard Greenberg <
> richard.greenberg at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Josh,
>> In rereading your updated language several times, nothing has changed. If
>> I create a budget, and I don't spend it the way I stated I would, then I
>> lose the money. Still the same, still bad, still should NOT be approved.
>>
>> Richard Greenberg, CISSP
>> President, OWASP Los Angeles,
>> www.owaspla.org
>> ISSA Fellow
>> President, ISSA Los Angeles,
>> www.issa-la.org
>> LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardagreenberg
>>
>> (424) 261-8111
>>
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2015 2:03 PM, "Josh Sokol" <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I think there is a major technical glitch at the moment with the mailing
>>> lists which is preventing me (and likely others) from seeing the responses
>>> in my e-mail.  I had to go back to the list archives in order to respond to
>>> some of the feedback:
>>>
>>> 1) Jim Weiler: Proposal 7: Regarding not having to have the staff notify
>>> leaders.  Technically, this already started happening within the past month
>>> or two.  The problem was we had a lack of education with many leaders on
>>> how much money they had and what they could spend it on.  This provides an
>>> automated, monthly, update so that leaders can make an informed decision.
>>>
>>> 2) Larry Conklin: Proposal 4: Can you please elaborate on "something
>>> else, but not sure what"?  I have no idea what you mean.
>>>
>>> 3) Larry Conklin: Proposal 8: Regarding what happens if a chapter wants
>>> to divert money from one thing to another.  This is not a problem.  There
>>> is nothing in the plan that prevents the transfer of funds or re-budgeting
>>> throughout the year.
>>>
>>> 4) Larry Conklin: Proposal 10:  Regarding working with those in excess
>>> of $5k first.  Absolutely.  This would be part of the budgeting process
>>> with support from the staff.  There will also be a massive communication
>>> plan associated with this effort.  Nobody wants to take money away.  We
>>> just want to make sure that everyone has a plan for the money they have.
>>> Does the proposal affect chapters with sponsors or chapters/projects with
>>> grants?  Yes.
>>>
>>> 5) Zac Fowler: Regarding $4500 being a big fine, it's not a fine, but I
>>> agree that there should be a major effort to try to work with people before
>>> they lose funding.  See my answer #4 above.  That said, I like your revised
>>> language and made a few small tweaks to it presented below.  Thank you for
>>> presenting alternate wording.  This is exactly the kind of constructive
>>> effort we were hoping to get by presenting it before a vote.
>>>
>>> 6) Richard Greenberg: While I love the passion, I'm afraid there is a
>>> big misunderstanding around Proposal 9 and this shows me that I need to
>>> revise the language.  This proposal was intended to act in isolation of the
>>> other proposals and I'm realizing that isn't clear.  The idea was that if a
>>> leader created a budget for funds that weren't in an account, those funds
>>> were approved by the Foundation, and the money was never spent, those funds
>>> are not "ring fenced" like other funds are today.  They would basically be
>>> considered unexecuted expenses and if the leader wanted to try again the
>>> following year, they would need to re-budget for it.  See my revised
>>> language below.
>>>
>>> *My Proposed Revised Language:*
>>> Change Proposal 9 to:
>>> *Separate from the aforementioned budgeting process for chapter and
>>> project accounts, any OWASP Leader can create a budget and provide it to
>>> the OWASP Board prior to November 1 for inclusion in the Foundation budget
>>> planning process.  The budget would be reviewed by the Executive Director
>>> and Board, and, if approved, incorporated into the overall OWASP Foundation
>>> budget for the following year.  This would effectively set aside the funds
>>> to use at the appropriate period of time, in the future, with no further
>>> approvals necessary.  Money that is budgeted in this manner, that wasn’t
>>> spent during the calendar year, would be returned back to the OWASP
>>> Foundation general funds.*
>>>
>>> Change Proposal 10 to:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Accounts with a balance of $5,000 or more as of December
>>> 1,with no proposed budget for spending their funds, will be contacted by theOWASP staff
>>> directly to review their account balance. The chapter will berequired to create a budget to allocate the funds for the upcoming year.*
>>> *Unbudgeted funds may be diverted to other project(s), chapter(s), or*
>>> *Community Engagement Funding accounts if the chapter cannot be contacted
>>> or a budget is not received prior to January 1.*
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> ~josh
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20151005/b17afa9a/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list