Replacing Committees with Working Groups

[Andrew van der Stock]

Hi Board,

Some committees are very successful, but as we deep dive into the Committee policy review, I have come to realize that most are not doing what they need to do and are hamstrung with ever increasing administrivia that is holding them back from achieving strategic outcomes in a timely fashion. 

The solution is not addressing the administrivia, like ensuring that meetings have a published agenda, properly minuted, or add anti-trust and conflict of interest, Board training, but to gut Committees completely to free up volunteers to GET STUFF DONE. Strategic stuff. Not operational stuff. The problem is not charters that aren't specific, it's that Committees as we have them today are designed to fail. 

Please read my proposal, and let me know what you think:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tu1yvGuO9ienC7Cq936eiRL5c02bXa3rRciU3C2Bku0/edit?usp=sharing

Thoughts? Happy to discuss at the next Board meeting, or even better at the strategic Board meeting in Amsterdam. 

thanks,

Andrew

[Harold Blankenship]

Ahaha. This is almost exactly what I suggested to Izar recently when someone brought up a 'sub-committee' and I suggested that working groups are more useful, possibly. Although there are committees that have performed admirably, the biggest problem I have had with committees (and I admit that I was one of the persons who worked to abolish them from OWASP in 2018/2019) is that they tended to be ineffectual, poorly attended, or interfere with operational concerns, or all three. Any work that needs to be operational (which is what most committees end up doing) should not be delegated to volunteers, in my opinion, as that leads to long wait times and the highly likely occurrence of the work just not getting done. Elections were not required by policy when they were originally brought back (they used the language 'should' versus 'must' instead of the 'shall' language now used) because committees just haven't been highly sought after positions by volunteers so electing new members is likely to produce 0 results over time (committees were just not functional as a result back in 2018/2019). The reality of committees does not match the dream.

So, as far as I am concerned, I'd be more than happy to entertain dropping committees in favor of working groups, and would like to see a more in-depth proposal for how that looks (though the use of the words strategic and operational with regard to working groups is debatable).

Well, that's my perspective. I like a good debate.

Cheers,

Harold

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Global-board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to global-board...@owasp.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/268aadf4-168e-4422-bb81-c58141f5f8e2n%40owasp.org.

--

Harold L. Blankenship

harold.bl...@owasp.org
Events Committee
Developer Guide Project

Consider giving back, and supporting the open source community by becoming a member or making a donation today!

[Louis Griffith]

Hi Andrew,

I will review it today and get back to you and the Board with my thoughts. That said, I tend to agree that something needs to be done—there are challenges that may be limiting committees from fully achieving their intended potential.

Kind Regards,

Ricardo

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/CAAZg9r6t8ujRD%3DUOH%3D42FXP9g0z-RiGOch5VDzNxizNbo__AzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Springett]

I could get behind this type of change. However, with the renewed focus on the funding model along with changes in how we execute strategic initiatives, I expect a framework for standing up working groups on a as-needed basis, and I would expect an annual report (operational) to be published that highlights the impact we have made that year along with a roadmap for future improvements. This is a similar model to OpenSSF.

However, I would not support a change to working groups - which by nature would be strategic, without any commitments to publish annual reports highlighting the foundations impact that year - which by nature includes the working groups.

See https://openssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/OpenSSF_Annual_Report_2024.pdf for an example.

— Steve

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/CAGtLE5sou19mza4qRuzp%3DTw2hdcxSj_5hiXVq51MJoGNqbvXHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Louis Griffith]

Hi All,

Great discussion so far. Sam brought up a good point earlier today—our bylaws are littered with references to Committees, which means any significant change will require some thoughtful effort. I appreciate the proposal’s direct perspective on how the current committee structure can stifle strategic progress due to excessive administrivia.

I’m intrigued, as it appears others are too, by the idea of shifting from traditional Committees to more agile working groups focused on strategic outcomes. However, I have a few questions and points I think we should explore further:

- How do we envision phasing out or transforming existing committees given the entrenched references in our bylaws? What would the roadmap look like for moving from committees to working groups?

- While working groups are expected to free up volunteers to focus on “getting stuff done,” what structures will we have in place to ensure accountability and continuity in our strategic efforts? Do we need to retain any elements of the current committee framework for oversight?

I’m looking forward to further discussion and echo Harold's recommendation for requesting a more detailed proposal on how we can implement these changes effectively.

Best regards,

Ricardo

[ashwini siddhi]

The overall concept of reducing operational tasks and shifting the focus toward strategic objectives is great. Alongside the pros the proposal called out, this has the potential to boost morale among security enthusiasts by allowing them to engage in security engineering work.

I've reviewed the proposal and consider it a promising first step in the right direction—I’ve added my comments in the document. At a high level, we need to drill down into specific details to ensure we are fully prepared. Establishing a clear Working Group framework or structure seems like the logical next step.

Regards

Ashwini

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/CAGtLE5stES4U6jzLaOsYZFpAnbt83%3DuhqN7A--vCxj2vpj%2BEeQ%40mail.gmail.com.