[Owasp-leaders] OWASP charitable status (was: Re: OWASP Election)

Larry Conklin larry.conklin at owasp.org
Thu Oct 8 18:59:53 UTC 2015


BTW and I am not in favor of doing this nor am I against it. I just want to
understand the facts of why, benefits, and downside. I will publicly say I
am for Tom as a board member.

Larry

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
wrote:

> OK just to be clear. A 501(c)(6) can have unlimited corporate,
> individual, or union contributions.  On the point of being able to deduct
> your contributions the answer is yes and no.
>
> *Contributions* to section *501*(*c*)(*6*) *organizations* are not
> *deductible *as charitable *contributions* on the donor's federal income
> tax return. They may be *deductible* as trade or business expenses if
> ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's business.
>
> On loosing 25% of our membership. I think that is a grasp out of thin air.
> Why grasp can we have a survey once we can get a clear picture of the pros
> and cons?
>
> Larry
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> > Hey Jim can you please list what we would loose (we don't really gain
>> anything but we lose a lot.) if we moved to a 501(c)(6) organization?
>>
>> OWASP would lose 25% of of it's active membership, including myself, if
>> it stopped being a charity. Also, anyone donating money to OWASP would lose
>> the ability to deduct those funds. Trade associations are mostly vendor run
>> and self funded. This is the exact opposite direction I think OWASP should
>> be going in, IMO.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> https://www.owasp.org
>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://appsecusa.org/> 2015!
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Jim can you please list what we would loose (we don't really gain
>> anything but we lose a lot.) if we moved to a 501(c)(6) organization?
>>
>> Tom, Can you please list the benefits we would gain if we move to a
>> 501(6) organization in a point by point email to all of us?
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony,
>>>
>>> We don't really do any lobbying now. If we wanted to, we could - even as
>>> a 501(c)3 - so long as we limit the money we spend doing it per current IRS
>>> regulation.
>>>
>>> So why change to a trade association to do "more lobbying" when we don't
>>> even do it now? I think it's short cited to suggest we change to a trade
>>> association because there are no positives, we don't really gain anything
>>> but we lose a lot.
>>>
>>> More than the IRS law, for a candidate to even suggest this demonstrates
>>> a priority over vendors and commerce and things that feel self serving to
>>> me as opposed to a focus on education and charity. Moving away from a
>>> charity is something that is very disturbing to me and I feel it
>>> jeopardizes destroying what makes OWASP great.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Tobias, that's exactly what I was getting at in my last email.
>>> From my perspective, the only thing I've consistently heard that hinders
>>> our mission somewhat is restrictions around getting involved in
>>> politics/legislation. While OWASP is referenced by many frameworks around
>>> the globe, we do appear to be somewhat limited in our ability to
>>> proactively lobby lawmakers to make more sensible laws. Making laws isn't
>>> necessarily part of our mission, but making application security visible to
>>> those that do make laws certainly falls within our objectives I would say.
>>> It's possible that an OWASP project geared around legal frameworks and
>>> application security that can be referenced by those more inclined to lobby
>>> would fill that gap without the need for restructuring.
>>>
>>> Has anyone run into other issues that the (c)(3) prohibits that hinders
>>> our mission?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good to see this move to a discussion about our organisation structure
>>>> and not a election campaign one.
>>>>
>>>> I like to take this one step further:
>>>> In fact this should at first not be about technical organisational
>>>> structure.
>>>> *The key question is what we want to do and then we see whether the
>>>> organisational structure fits that or needs to be changed.* So we
>>>> should think about what are the new actions we want to take and the things
>>>> that we no longer want to do, that would require us to change from 501(c)3
>>>> to 501(c)6?
>>>>
>>>> What are the underlying real reasons to change?
>>>> And of course also what are the disadvantages of changing?
>>>> So far I have not heard much about that...
>>>> I really like to understand what is the need, what is the underlying
>>>> reason for that?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe one data point I can offer from my last two years at the board:
>>>> Over the last two years, I did not encounter much problems with our
>>>> current structure. I do not recall cases where we really wanted to do
>>>> something and couldn't, just because we were a 501(c)3. That was not the
>>>> problem. Nor did I feel "oh gosh, wouldn't it be so much better being a
>>>> 501(c)6 now....". Don't get me wrong, there definitely are differences and
>>>> actions that are non-compatible with a 501(c)3, but IMHO this was never a
>>>> problem. And IMO the spirit of our open sharing community and our aim to
>>>> make the world a more secure place feel well aligned with the spirit of a
>>>> 501(c)3.
>>>>
>>>> To conclude: My personal experience so far is that our current
>>>> structure works well for our community and we don't have much problems with
>>>> restrictions from it. But if someone sees an actual problem and need to
>>>> change, I would love to hear more about it and understand it better. Please
>>>> help me understand what is the issue for you? And let us discuss which
>>>> activity we want to do that would need us to change the organisation in
>>>> order to allow us to do it?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Tobias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/10/15 17:35, psiinon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From http://www.nonprofitlawcenter.com/resDetails.php?item_ref=247
>>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of an IRC § 501(c)(6) organization?
>>>>
>>>> A4: The purpose of this type of organization is to serve its members
>>>>
>>>> I dont think that what OWASP should be about - we should be all about
>>>> helping others (to be more secure) not about helping OWASP members.
>>>>
>>>> Q5: What are the functions of an IRC § 501(c)(3) organization?
>>>>
>>>> A5: The functions of an IRC § 501(c)(3) organization can be
>>>> multitudinous. There are endless types of programs that serve charitable,
>>>> educational, and like ends.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so I'm new to this legalise and definitely dont really understand
>>>> the differences, but that sounds much more appropriate for OWASP.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at proactiverisk.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair Jim OWASP is not a scientific research or a religious
>>>>> focus.  It is focused on “trying to raise awareness for software security"
>>>>>
>>>>> This was discussed during the interview have a listen here
>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/owasp-podcast/owasp-board-interview-milton-smith-tobias-gondrom-tom-brannen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wish to draw your eyes and those of the other members (660+ on
>>>>> this leaders list) to the legal review of 501(c)3 vs. (c)6 that are BOTH
>>>>> non-profit status
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nonprofitlawcenter.com/resDetails.php?item_ref=247
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a GOP debate — this is a group of (9) people that are
>>>>> volunteering to help the organization continue to grow globally and locally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Brennan
>>>>> 973-506-9304
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom is trying to shift OWASP away from a charity to a 501c6 trade
>>>>> association.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to drop our charity and focus on vendor relations then
>>>>> vote for Tom.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you care about open source, serving the community, and our values
>>>>> of vendor neutrality and non-commercialism then please consider other
>>>>> candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Manico
>>>>> Global Board Member
>>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>>>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://appsecusa.org/> 2015!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Tom Brennan <tomb at proactiverisk.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> OWASP Foundation Inc., announced the 2015 International Board of
>>>>> Director candidates and I am throwing my hat in the ring again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am requesting your support and vote this October 7th 2015 – WHY ME
>>>>> you ask…. read, watch and hear the details here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.proactiverisk.com/2016-owasp/
>>>>>
>>>>> Semper Fi,
>>>>> Tom Brennan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
>>>>> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
>>>>> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
>>>>> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
>>>>> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. No employee
>>>>> or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of
>>>>> ProactiveRISK with another party by email.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
>>>>> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
>>>>> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
>>>>> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
>>>>> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. No employee
>>>>> or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of
>>>>> ProactiveRISK with another party by email.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing listOWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.orghttps://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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Turner
>>> OWASP Orlando Chapter Founder/Co-Leader
>>> WAFEC Project Leader
>>> STING Game Project Leader
>>> tony.turner at owasp.org
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Orlando
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20151008/08473eba/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list