[Owasp-testing] [Owasp-leaders] Unsubscribe

Neil Smithline neil.smithline at owasp.org
Mon Jun 9 17:08:53 UTC 2014


Go to http://owasp.org and select "Mailing Lists" in the left-hand column.
Select the correct list and follow the unsubscribe directions at the bottom
of the page.


Neil Smithline
408-634-5764
http://www.neilsmithline.com


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:03 PM, <beth.ritter-guth at ucc.edu> wrote:

> I need this, as well.  I would like my email to only go to my OWASP
> account.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
> owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Peter Perfetti
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:00 PM
> To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org; owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] Unsubscribe
>
> Too much email at this address. I need to have my owaso email address
> fixed and all mail going there. Who do I need to contact to get that done?
>
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:57, Mike Nickel <mike.nickel at aspectsecurity.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Unsubscribe
> >
> > MIKE NICKEL  IT SUPPORT ENGINEER
> > Office: 301.604.4882 x7005 | Direct: 240.459.1592
> > Mike.Nickel at AspectSecurity.com <image001.png>
> >
> > From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> > [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Dinis Cruz
> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 10:52 AM
> > To: psiinon
> > Cc: Jason Flood; owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org;
> > owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> > Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] (on respectufull OWASP threads) Re:
> > [Owasp-testing] Flagship Project Status
> >
> > Regarding Christian's abuses and attacks, that 'reporting' has been done
> many times before, and this is not really a Whistleblower case since by
> definition all that is happening is public domain, the issue is 'acceptance
> (or not) of such behaviour'
> >
> > Dinis
> >
> > On 9 June 2014 15:08, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If anyone has any concerns about an individual's conduct on OWASP
> > mailing lists then they should report them to the OWASP Compliance
> > officer as per
> > https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Governance/Whistleblower_Policy
> > This is the correct way forward, and I'm sure that the number of
> complaints against an individual will be taken into account.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
> > Jason you are absolutely correct and this type of accusations and
> behaviour should not be allowed/tolerated at OWASP.
> >
> > The reality is that Christian (as you can see on this thread) is the one
> that tends to behave like that. There has been many 'arguments' and 'owasp
> threads' in the past, but Christian is the one that brings that level of
> conversion to the table.
> >
> > Christian has already been banned (at least) twice in the past from
> OWASP, and after many requests (by many parties) the current board (which
> should be the 'referee' that you mention) has failed to put an end into it.
> >
> > My biggest problem with Christian's behaviour is not the accusations
> that he makes (although I have to say that being one of the many in the
> receiving end of such personal attacks ,is not nice at all (specially when
> he makes accusations about OWASP activities that took a lot of effort and
> personal sacrifice)), my biggest problem is the idea that such behaviour is
> accepted/tolerated at OWASP.
> >
> > OWASP SHOULD NOT tolerate that type of behaviour, from anyone.
> >
> > This doesn't mean that we should not disagree with each other, of course
> we should, BUT it is key that the discussion is kept on a professional
> level and there is a minimum level of respect.
> >
> > And of course, if some OWASP leader or contributor feels that something
> is really wrong , then yes that should be reported (with evidence
> supporting it). But that is not what Christian does.
> >
> > So please, can the OWASP board deal with this type of accusations! There
> have been too many OWASP leaders and key contributors offended, which is
> really the big loss here.
> >
> > Dinis
> >
> > On 7 June 2014 13:05, Jason Flood <jasoneflood at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I've been watching this mail thread evolve in a mixture of shock and
> disappointment. I've have been the leader of a volunteer security group in
> Dublin, I've been attacked, I've been publicly questioned, I've been
> insulted. As the leader my hands were tied, as I was supposed to raise
> myself above the natural human reaction I wanted to have. In times like
> this it was great when the community itself would *jump in* and define what
> it would tolerate from it's members, both at a project level but also at
> the human level of how we engage and communicate with each other.
> >
> > In this group - I am not on the board. I am one of the voices, freed
> from the constraints of political correctness and being the "better man".
> >
> > I have witnessed highly insulting name calling with the turncoat
> statement, potentially professionally damaging statements about disgruntled
> employee behavior, organisational corruption insinuated with the nepotism
> theory's [without reference to the skill sets of those hired] even leaning
> towards accusing someone of embezzlement of funds.
> >
> > The tone, the attitude and sentiment of these communications need to
> stop. The corruption "facts" need to be elevated out of this arena, and
> into a far more formalized process. Public slander should not be tolerated
> at any level, least of all between the OWASP community itself. Jokes and
> Jibes are part an parcel of any group. I do not see the humor in this
> thread. Just ego.
> >
> > We are a very small community - I've met Simon, twice. I saw Dinis once
> at an OWASP gig in Dublin maybe 4 years ago. I looked at O2 as a potential
> project to bring into my day job to help with automation, but at the time I
> found it a bit prototypy for a rollout. I have not looked at it since. It
> could be great now, It could be worse.
> >
> > I am stating this so you can understand I am not friends, or married to
> cousins of key stake holders or go for walks with OWASP board members dogs.
> My opinions are my own. My linked in profile is at least 4 years out of
> date, I don't do face book - so apologies to the background checkers. The
> hostile nature of this communication thread needs to end. I'll go even one
> step further - and explain myself in World cup terms.
> >
> > In my opinion - someone has just been tackled in the box and the striker
> has gone down. The referee has to make the decision. Was there a foul
> committed or did the striker take a dive? One thing is certain, at this
> point it's not O.K to wave play on.
> >
> > Compile your evidence of corruption. Send it discreetly to the board.
> Let the powers that be evaluate it.  If the allegations are determined to
> be unjustified - its either a red card offence or a yellow, the referee can
> decide. Or there is a penalty due that will change the course of the game.
> >
> > Arguably if this matter had of been handled more discreetly I do not
> think a yellow/red card would be justified irrespective of the result. At
> this point I am not so sure. People should question and protest, it's how
> they question - the medium they choose, and their approach that is subject
> to review.
> >
> > I also do not believe any project status should be above review. I think
> downgrading everything - and then upgrading was potentially the fairest and
> cleanest approach. Surely that technique is symbolic that the OWASP board
> are not playing favorites.
> > I will not get involved in any further communication on this thread. I
> will not reply to any response to this note. This is a toxic hostile thread
> that needs to stop in it's current format. Compile the evidence, put it
> forward and OWASP should clean house to suit the desired result of the
> inquiry.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:34 AM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have an issue with Simon but the fact is Michael Coates, him
> > and you have all worked for Mozilla and yet OWASP invested in WebScrab
> > in the past.  In Simon's defence he probably didn't know about
> > WebScrab because OWASP didn't help with the promotion of known
> > projects since hired Dinis Cruz hired personal friends to promote his
> > own projects.
> >
> >
> > On the contrary, I was very aware of WebScarab and its importance to
> OWASP at the time - I half expected my application for ZAP to become an
> OWASP project to be rejected due to the clear overlap with WebScarab.
> > I wanted to create a powerful but easy to use security tool for
> developers, and I seriously considered using WebScarab as the basis for
> that tool.
> > However while WebScarab had much more of the functionality that I wanted
> than Paros did, I found WebScarab very complicated and unintuitive.
> > I decided that I would rather add functionality to Paros than try to
> > make WebScarab easier to use, and I've not regretted that decision :)
> >
> > I do agree that OWASP has not been very effective at promoting any of
> its projects, including ZAP.
> > However I'm not going to point fingers at any individuals.
> > OWASP is primarily a volunteer organization, and its up to all of us to
> address issues that we are concerned with.
> > While I think OWASP could do a better job of promoting all of its
> > projects I dont have any big ideas how that could be achieved -
> marketing is not my area of expertise ;) I dont like criticizing unless I
> can offer constructive alternatives.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > --
> > OWASP ZAP Project leader
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-testing mailing list
> > Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-testing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Owasp-testing mailing list
> > Owasp-testing at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-testing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > OWASP ZAP Project leader
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). If
> you are not the intended recipient of this message, please alert the sender
> by reply email and delete this message and any attachments. Any use,
> dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments by
> unintended recipients is prohibited.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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-testing/attachments/20140609/d8fbf64f/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-testing mailing list