[Owasp-leaders] New supporter logos

Tom Brennan - OWASP tomb at owasp.org
Thu May 19 15:24:01 UTC 2016


It's great to always have *spirited and professional debates* and
discussion on all topics from the website redesign project
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TDRFQT2> that is underway, owasp project
management
<https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1ncNTj6C7QlImxn_4LwgePt8eMRU7ZVLcbWFBZGfwmek/edit?usp=sharing>,
branding, and other debated and approved strategic initiatives
<https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Strategic_Goals> for 2016.

Your elected volunteer leadership is investing lot's of time to represent
their constituency if you have not recently CONTACT THEM they are your
proxy for VOTES and be your advocate for your region/concerns
Current OWASP Global Board - Effective January 2016

   - Matt Konda <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Matt_Konda> Chicago, USA -
   matt.konda(at)owasp.org
   - Josh Sokol <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Jsokol> Texas, USA -
   josh.sokol(at)owasp.org
   - Andrew van der Stock
   <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Andrew_van_der_Stock> Australia -
   vanderaj(at)owasp.org
   - Jim Manico <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Jmanico> Hawaii, USA
   - jim(at)owasp.org
   - Michael Coates <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:MichaelCoates> -
   California, USA - michael.coates(at)owasp.org
   - Tobias Gondrom <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Tgondrom> Hong
   Kong - tobias.gondrom(at)owasp.org
   - Tom Brennan <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/User:Brennan> New Jersey,
   USA - tomb(at)owasp.org


The "formal discussion" can always be heard from members at the OWASP Board
meeting take the floor and have a voice and TALK with people that happens
monthly and in the event you miss it, there is audio archive and meeting
mins., board votes details: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Board  there is
always time for NEW BUSINESS we ALWAYS provide time to hear from members on
concerns. Motions can be introduced for vote to CHANGE ANYTHING at OWASP
Foundation per the bylaws
<https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Foundation_ByLaws> and under scores
the recent announcement to effect change and why the 2016 Global BoD
Election Call for Candidates is NOW OPEN!
<http://owasp.blogspot.com/2016/05/2016-global-bod-election-call-for.html>

There are (7) Regions of the world illustrated here
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Chapter#Chapters_by_Geographic_Region
consider
nominating one of your member peers to drive the future of the
organization.

Look forward to seeing many in the community at AppSecEU/AppSecUSA and
anytime on skype ;)

Tom Brennan
GPG ID: DC6AA149 | Fingerprint: 12A6 9978 45BB 1562 C921  B228 BD0F D9C6
DC6A A

OWASP Foundation | www.owasp.org
Tel:  (m) 973-506-9304

Need to book time with me to discuss an existing or a future project click
on my virtual calendar http://www.proactiverisk.com/brennan



On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:22 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:

> >>Secondary, I strongly agree with Larry that OWASP leaders may want to
> stick to more formal tone in written communication.
>
> Thats another issue. We do not have a 'formal' way to do things but
> mailing list....
>
> A good idea to consider is to formalise when people do not agree.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Elizabeth Belousov <
> elizabeth.belousov at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> I believe we all voted on the logo in April. At least all leaders were
>> offered to vote.
>> Secondary, I strongly agree with Larry that OWASP leaders may want to
>> stick to more formal tone in written communication.
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Liz Belousov*
>> Volunteer* | *OWASP Foundation
>> NYC chapter
>>  [image:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/profile/public-profile-settings?trk=prof-edit-edit-public_profile]
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/public-profile-settings?trk=prof-edit-edit-public_profile>
>>
>> On May 19, 2016, at 10:03, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>> >>Every new thing that OWASP tries doesn’t need to be wrap in a blanket
>> of doom and gloom.
>>
>> Welcome to my world ;-). Have you any idea how often I launch ideas that
>> have been crushed by others in here, forgetting I'm just a  volunteer?
>> Well, some people have valid point other don't. We have too keep moving fwd.
>>
>> My point is not against the logo. I support the logo.
>>
>> Is just that we launch this without having done the homework and legal
>> framework. What is the rush? We could have wait a little more and avoid
>> headaches. No one consult this properly.
>>
>> I think if you have been following Dirk's activities, he is tired of
>> preaching and not being heard, I have very often the same feeling too.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Johanna
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Johanna, I have to respectfully disagree. Yes, TM issues do exist. But
>>> that said I believe the issue is at times as a community we focus way too
>>> much of our time and effort on the downside of anything new or different.
>>> Bullet proof TM policies or not doesn’t prevent anyone from abusing our
>>> logos.  The same issue is for ISC(2) which has badges. Coke Cola,
>>> Xerox, Kleenex have the strongest brands worldwide, with a huge cash pile
>>> and lawyers to protect them. They are also in some form of ligation
>>> everyday with people trying to abuse or encroach on their bands. Yes that
>>> is wrong but it’s not every going to prevent someone from trying. Isn’t the
>>> saying “imitation is the greatest complement”.
>>>
>>> Also we as leaders did to be much more proactive. OWASP badges were no
>>> secret. We knew they were coming. We even had a debate on the logo style.
>>>
>>> My points is still valid IMHO. We need to step back and breathe. Every
>>> new thing that OWASP tries doesn’t need to be wrap in a blanket of doom and
>>> gloom. Yes there is lots of things and need to change, things that need to
>>> be fixed. As a large community everyone is not going to work on everyone
>>> else’s priority projects and nothing is ever going to be perfect.
>>>
>>> Second we as leaders to be more proactive, we need to have much more
>>> active discussion before an event and not afterwards. And we don’t need to
>>> address everything as if the world is falling down around us.
>>>
>>> I apologize if your email and Dirk’s was not in that tone but that is
>>> how it came across to me.
>>> Larry Conklin
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:08 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> me too
>>>>
>>>> Hi Larry,
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not the supporter logo.
>>>>
>>>> The issue is the lack of a TM and the lack of policies around the use
>>>> of it, that can trigger brand abuses.
>>>>
>>>> I just asked my husband who is a lawyer and his opinion was that this
>>>> should have been done BEFORE not AFTER the launch.However is not too late
>>>> to provide a legal frameworks and policies around it but is going to cost
>>>> money to find out.
>>>>
>>>> >>However, a major policy change will not likely occur before we've
>>>> really thought this through and had some legal advice
>>>> Exactly. I though this was going to be launched when  this was defined
>>>> properly.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure why but I got a message saying my original email failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need a new badge for doom and gloom. lol. Come on folks. We
>>>>> are proud of what we do at OWASP. We are proud of OWASP. We are proud of
>>>>> what OWASP has accomplish in the AppSec world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't we want to show some love? This isn't something new but
>>>>> it is an emerging marketing tool. Today besides having an OWASP badge and
>>>>> can get a badge from ISC(2) for my CISSP certification.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not diluting ISC(2) brand, nor am I diluting OWASP brand by using
>>>>> a badge. only thing I would be doing is showing my support in a visible
>>>>> way. Oh yes I can also get a badge for Linux Foundation CII.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes we could have a debate if badges really provide or increase
>>>>> motivation or increase marketing. That would be a good debate. But I
>>>>> haven't read one thing that says badges decrease a brand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is really at fault. it's not like no one didn't see this coming.
>>>>> Dirk and Johanna your voice would have been much better at the beginning of
>>>>> this conversation and not at the end IMHO. Take a moment, take a deep
>>>>> breath. If you don't like the badge don't use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Conklin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Larry Conklin <
>>>>> larry.conklin at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need a new badge for doom and gloom. lol. Come on folks.
>>>>>> We are proud of what we do at OWASP. We are proud of OWASP. We are proud of
>>>>>> what OWASP has accomplish in the AppSec world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't we want to show some love? This isn't something new but
>>>>>> it is an emerging marketing tool. Today besides having an OWASP badge and
>>>>>> can get a badge from ISC(2) for my CISSP certification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not diluting ISC(2) brand, nor am I diluting OWASP brand by
>>>>>> using a badge. only thing I would be doing is showing my support in a
>>>>>> visible way. Oh yes I can also get a badge for Linux Foundation CII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes we could have a debate if badges really provide or increase
>>>>>> motivation or increase marketing. That would be a good debate. But I
>>>>>> haven't read one thing that says badges decrease a brand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is really at fault. it's not like no one didn't see this coming.
>>>>>> Dirk and Johanna your voice would have been much better at the beginning of
>>>>>> this conversation and not at the end IMHO. Take a moment, take a deep
>>>>>> breath. If you don't like the badge don't use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Conklin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:12 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>>>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>To make this clear: I will rather swallow my keyboard instead of
>>>>>>> doing this. In fact I am trying to fight those cases but to me it
>>>>>>> seems that either nobody is listening or OWASP became a vendor driven
>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I share Dirk's concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This new supporter logo can cause more brand abuses because the uses
>>>>>>> of it  has not being properly defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far is a free for all, like Dirk said. This does not have yet a
>>>>>>> TM on it and it should have it first before going to promote it . Also
>>>>>>> specify in which cases can be used. Now it can be completely abused without
>>>>>>> OWASP being able to have any legal framework to avoid this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  If anyone is following social media,  rumour has it OWASP is a
>>>>>>> vendor ground.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I'm an OWASP supporter, I'm not benefiting financially on
>>>>>>> (ab)using the OWASP name cause in my country people even has no idea what
>>>>>>> OWASP is.  I assume those in US and EU can be more interest in (ab)use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that it misleads people into think that OWASP has an
>>>>>>> 'approval seal' on anything a vendor or individual does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we promoting more our 'vendor neutrality' with this? I don't
>>>>>>> think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now is a free for all. Good luck checking abuses. No legal framework
>>>>>>> right now for control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not often writing to the leaders list. Time has come though to
>>>>>>>> share concerns with you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My trigger is the new supporter logo "strategy" which became public
>>>>>>>> today:
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/owasp/status/732921073025572864
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I considered the OWASP logo as our core value. I represents OWASP's
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> standing. Lot of people in the community contributed to build up
>>>>>>>> our reputation
>>>>>>>> and -- as a consequence -- to our brand. That is good. Most of the
>>>>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>>> were altruistic. That's how I understand Open Source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it looks to me we are giving our good standing away instead of
>>>>>>>> putting strong controls
>>>>>>>> at it. First question: Why do we need to do this? Is this because
>>>>>>>> we feel the need to
>>>>>>>> get more people to OWASP and we are somehow blindfolded not able to
>>>>>>>> look at the consequences of a logo distribution? Or are there the
>>>>>>>> commercial interests ruling here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Worse: the branding guide  (
>>>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#tab=BRAND_GUIDELINES
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> is more or less still the same. I had some discussions warning that
>>>>>>>> we should fix the bugs in the branding guide
>>>>>>>> first before doing this. Heck, we don't even have a trademark
>>>>>>>> policy yet, no legal constraint [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is quite the opposite as the speaker agreement -- by the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To go into detail (attention, sarcasm)
>>>>>>>> ============================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. The OWASP Brand may be used in association with an application
>>>>>>>> security assessment only if a complete and detailed methodology, sufficient
>>>>>>>> to reproduce the results, is disclosed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ==> Cool, OWASP allows me to put their logo on my pentests. That
>>>>>>>> certainly sounds good for my costumers also if I
>>>>>>>>   present BS to him (well, if I care, I could describe the complete
>>>>>>>> and detailed methodology -- but who cares! Nobody
>>>>>>>>   can control it as my costumer will certainly has no interest to
>>>>>>>> publish my report with his bugs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW: This could also be applied for tools.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. The OWASP Brand may be used by OWASP Members in good standing to
>>>>>>>> acknowledge a person's involvement in or a company's support of OWASP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ==> C00l. I edit the wiki, change a letter and I can use the OWASP
>>>>>>>> brand on my website to promote my business.
>>>>>>>>        Or I write a mail to the leaders list. Heck, in fact, as I
>>>>>>>> am on this list, I made it and can use the OWASP logo everywhere!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW: If a local chapter has corporate sponsorships like the global
>>>>>>>> ones, vendor XYZ purchases this sponsorship
>>>>>>>> for ten bucks, getting a logo in return and next exhibition he puts
>>>>>>>> this as a sticker to his WAF. W00t!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. The OWASP Brand may be used to direct people to the OWASP
>>>>>>>> website for information about application security.
>>>>>>>> 2. The OWASP Brand may be used in commentary about the materials
>>>>>>>> found on the OWASP website.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ==> 1337! I can still use the logo on my commercial web site. My
>>>>>>>> idea is here is to sell a service or a product. But
>>>>>>>>        if anyone reads it of course I will argue that I only
>>>>>>>> intended to point to OWASP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully you got the message without feeling offended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To make this clear: I will rather swallow my keyboard instead of
>>>>>>>> doing this. In fact I am trying to fight those
>>>>>>>> cases but to me it seems that either nobody is listening or OWASP
>>>>>>>> became a vendor driven organization.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a consequence I am afraid if we don't agree on a strong logo /
>>>>>>>> trademark policy we are commercializing more and more.
>>>>>>>> Where is "my OWASP" I used to love?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] Even ISACA has stronger usage rules of their brand (not talking
>>>>>>>> about materials!):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.isaca.org/About-ISACA/Licensing-and-Promotion/Pages/IP-Guidelines.aspx#usageRules
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> German OWASP Chapter Lead
>>>>>>>> Send me encrypted mails (Key ID 0xB818C039)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johanna Curiel
>> OWASP Volunteer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Johanna Curiel
> OWASP Volunteer
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>

-- 
The information contained in this message and any attachments may be 
privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from 
disclosure. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by replying to the message, permanently delete it from your 
computer and destroy any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160519/7aed6a47/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list