Difference between revisions of "Committees 2.0"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(OWASP Global Committees 2.0)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
== OWASP Global Committees 2.0 ==
 
== OWASP Global Committees 2.0 ==
  
''' We want your input!'''-  [https://www.google.com/moderator/?authuser=1#16/e=2130f2 Participate here] <br> Anyone can view, you must be logged into a google account (not just owasp.org)  to vote or submit a suggestion.
+
  This information contributed to the RFC which is listed here - https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/document/d/1Qpb34WXJQfPdNOc2w7iwGwgwDUsI8GmGtM8C6bRPzU8/edit
 +
 
 +
''' We want your input!'''-  [https://www.google.com/moderator/?authuser=1#16/e=2130f2 Participate here] <br> Anyone can view, you must be logged into a google account (not just owasp.org)  to vote or submit a suggestion.
  
 
'''Objective''':  Inspire and empower our volunteer community to not only participate in, but drive a variety of activities within OWASP
 
'''Objective''':  Inspire and empower our volunteer community to not only participate in, but drive a variety of activities within OWASP

Revision as of 12:51, 11 July 2014

OWASP Global Committees 2.0

  This information contributed to the RFC which is listed here - https://docs.google.com/a/owasp.org/document/d/1Qpb34WXJQfPdNOc2w7iwGwgwDUsI8GmGtM8C6bRPzU8/edit

We want your input!- Participate here
Anyone can view, you must be logged into a google account (not just owasp.org) to vote or submit a suggestion.

Objective: Inspire and empower our volunteer community to not only participate in, but drive a variety of activities within OWASP

Need: OWASP has deviated from it’s position as a platform organization. The community needs to find the voice necessary to influence change and growth in the organization. A flexible yet structured process is necessary to provide the community with the tools they need to be successful. This process should empower the community to make decisions and engage in activities based on their interest, as well as available time and energy.

Proposal: Develop a tiered committee structure leveraging the consolidated operational platform.

Lessons learned and obstacles to avoid:

' 2008 committee challenges 2014 committee proposal
Platform

The platform used to “manage” committee activity was limited to the wiki. This required committee chairs to maintain their wiki page and required potential members to complete cumbersome wiki pages to apply for the committee. Both of these activities, over time, became overlooked. Information was not updated and often potential members were ignored.

OWASP has consolidated its operational platform to work on the Salesforce platform. The overhauled operational platform provide the staff with the tools to better facilitate committees (not run them) with the ability to track members, member activities, topics, and needs in an open to all format. Additionally, this platform provides a place for committee and subcommittee engagement to occur.

Structure

Committees became an all or nothing group. This created meetings with months of planning and no real activity. Also, committee members were asked to participate in all of the committee activities and not just the tasks (or sub activity) that interested them or that they had time for.

The 2014 committee platform proposes a tiered structure that would allow the committee to exist at a high level, and have “sub committees” or “task forces” to be created under the umbrella of the global committee.

Membership

Initially, the committee members were recruited for a one year term. The committee members were to elect a committee chair who would serve as the point of contact for the committee. Evolution of the committee led to the perception of “lifetime” terms and members who “signed up” but never participated and felt like they could never leave.

The tiered committee structure allows a smaller group to lead or steer initiatives and sub committees. The leadership group will commit to a one year term, and the initiatives within the group will be task oriented and therefore have a deadline and a defined end point for the participants. An open call for participants for each new task or initiative allows for individuals who are no longer interested in participation to step away.

Leadership

The selected committee chairs became unwilling recruits who stepped in out of necessity or default. As such, much of the “objectives” of the committees fell to the staff to complete.

A key core committed group driving initiatives with variable lengths will allow the global community to participate in the activities that interest them for the length of time that it may require.

Committee Purpose

For some of the committees and committee chairs, the lack of a defined objective was a huge roadblock. The committees were created and provided a very broad segment. This lack of mission created disjointed efforts.

The committees should be assigned, not to a broad area of operations, but to the strategic goals as set by the Board. By collaborating as a global community with the opportunity to define a roadmap for a goal will allow for the committee members to be successful and to see progress.

Interaction

The 2008 committees worked, for the most part, independently of each other. This often created duplicate or even conflicting efforts leading to frustration.


The core leadership group will work as one unit. Each leader will chose a particular goal, and the leaders will monitor each other and interact on a regular basis to develop the initiatives and task force groups.

Board Involvement

The 2008 committees were assigned a board member to provide leadership and oversight. This created some reluctance from committee members to be daring and definitive.


The committees should not be managed by the board of directors. The board needs to show trust and encouragement for the community to experiment and to be successful. Board members can not participate as core committee members, but can provide input and participate in any of the task force initiatives as a community member.

Board Approval

The final decline of the committees occurred when a committee would bring a proposal to the board and have the board veto the committee chairs and members. This sent the message to the chairs that the efforts they were putting into the committees was done in vain.

Proposals brought forward from the committees should be voted upon by the community (or community leadership). The community decision should be considered valid. Implementing a process for a trial period of 6 months to a year would be sufficient to determine if it was beneficial for the organization. This also reinstates the sense of ownership the community has in the organization.


Rollout:

  • Establish high level committees that focus not on operational issues, but on the Strategic goals as determined by the board of directors.
  • Hold an open nomination period of 30 days (month of June or July) to establish the core committee leadership team. The leadership team will review the 2014 strategic goals and establish an initial set of initiatives to work towards the goals, “cross pollinating” ideas and successes.
  • The community will have the opportunity to “sign up” for an initiative or sub committee and begin work.
  • The structure in the Member Nation portal allows for open discussions, participation, and visibility while allowing the staff to provide metrics on participation and progress.
  • The process will be reviewed and modified as needed in 6 months.

Additional Comments

We want your input!- not just leaders, or individuals with an owasp.org email, anyone in the community is encouraged to participate in this poll of both the general idea of the committees 2.0 and particular features of the new model. Participate here - anyone can view, you must be logged into a google account (not just owasp.org) to vote or submit a suggestion.