March 7, 2011
Remove the "board member representative" requirement for the Global Committees.
This idea was intiated as a mechanism to provide the committeess with a "line" to the board. It has evolved, however, into a percieved "veto" option for the board. Instead, I recommend we implement a "requirement" for the Global Committee chair to present their committee progress to the Board during the meetings. This moves the requirement of participation from the Board and provides the Committee an opportunity to present items that require vote. Board members should be allowed to participate as a committee member, but should not be considered a committee chair or looked to as a committee member who has privelages above other committee members.
Approve $5K in funding for the Global Membership, Global Conferences, and Global Chapter Committees for operational support
These three committees have initiatives for 2011 as defined during the summit. These initiatives will require many "tasks" that are time consuming and will require uninterrupted hours to complete. I would like the committee chair to "approve" the selection. These contracted staff will be supervised by me, the Operations Director. Tasks managed and outcomes tracked as directed by the committee chairs.
Status of Tesauro Consulting Inititive
Is the OWASP Board going to continue working on the Core Values, Core Purpose, and so on, or is this going to be assigned to the Global Committee Chairs to finish?
Partnership agreement between OWASP and FIRST. Already has the concurrence of the GCC
Conference Profit Sharing Model
GCC approval on Jan 11th 2011 meeting Meeting Minutes
Local host chapters will share in OWASP event profits under the following schedule. In the case of multiple host chapters, the host chapters will be responsible for determining the division before the event.
- Global AppSec Conference - 25% of event profits with a $5,000 USD cap ($10,000 for multi-chapter events)
- Regional/Theme Events - 30% of event profits with a $4,000 USD cap
- Local Events - 50% of profits with a $3000 USD cap
GCC Representative Funding
The board had asked the GCC to discuss the funding mechanism for GCC representation at events (GCC budget or against individual conferences). This was discussed and voted upon at the Feb GCC meeting and the committee decided that it would be best to manage these funds out of a GCC travel budget for supporting events. The GCC felt that, as at the end of the day it's all the foundation's money, the benefits of rolling this travel under the conference budget (therefore showing more "expenses" to their budget, allegedly encouraging them to earn more money to break "even") did not outweigh the "perceived" costs of offering conferences direct on-site support and then "charging" them for it. As the travel costs are likely to have a small impact on a Global AppSec Budget (approx $2000/trip) it's not likely going to impact the bottom line of the conference and would not likely be the sole motivating factor for planners to get additional sponsorship income. The potential soft costs to the ability of the GCC to conduct it's oversight role may be significantly impacted by making the planners pay a "tax" that is wholly internal to the organizations accounting and has no real allocation. Additionally, in the cases where a conference planner said "thanks but no thanks" to a GCC rep at their conference, the larger goals of better contract management, event feedback and assessments would not be achieved. *In short, the GCC recommends to the board that this funding stream be placed under the GCC budget as originally requested in the amount of $10,000*.
In addition to these items, I just wanted to make you all aware that we are working on making some changes to the OWASP conference sponsorship model to allow for "Global" sponsors. We feel this will increase the net profits from conferences but as it is a budgetary item, the GCC will pass a draft to the board for consideration.