Federated entity in New Zealand

[Andrew van der Stock]

Hi there,

John and I met about a week ago to discuss various things. We need federated OWASP entities, along the lines of Amnesty International. The new bylaws permits this, but instead of deleting them, I would suggest we work out to make it work for John as a test case first.

I would suggest the following pathway:

Stage 1. Vote to permit John to change the name of his non-profit AppSec NZ to OWASP NZ, with a written understanding that there will be following governance and federated financial support models that he will need to adopt.

Stage 2. Consult with Amnesty International on their model. We use this model for China and NZ, and possibly the EU as well.

Stage 3. Pass a federation policy under the new bylaws, and revise agreements with OWASP NZ to ensure good governance, and mutually financially beneficial relationship between the two entities.

Stage 4. OWASP Foundation operationalizes the different models.

Please discuss. I'll add something to the agenda to have a discussion and / or vote.

thanks,

Andrew

[Martin Knobloch]

Hi Andrew,

I am confused, I thought you are on PTO?

Can we please follow a process on such matters. The current approach appears quite ad hoc to me.

Kind regards,
-martin

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/f1a64379-db92-42a1-871b-936a35568560n%40owasp.org.

[Avi Douglen]

Thanks Andrew. I like this plan a lot, it is very well thought out and I think will be useful - and possibly unfortunately popular, so we’d need to be very clear on the costs and downsides to this spreading. (e.g. I think OWASPIL might interested in considering this too, to save on VAT once we get back to inperson conferences…) 

And likely filters and other controls to ensure this doesn’t get out of hand and abused… but that will be in stage 3/4. 

Anyway I am on board with getting started with this plan, we’ll discuss at the meeting but any large issues should be raised now…? 

Cheers,

Avi D 

[Joubin Jabbari]

Don’t we need the bylaw change to make such votes? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/03680612-6F8D-4AF7-A068-2D2422E5858A%40owasp.org.

[Andrew van der Stock]

Hi Martin,

I am not on leave. I was on medical leave for COVID in mid-May, and I'm taking two weeks of annual leave from July 5 through July 15. During this time, Dawn will be fielding my email and Harold will be the Board's point of contact. I will be discussing my leave with the Officers at today's Board prep meeting, because I will need Vandana or Grant to sign contracts on the Foundation's behalf, and for Glenn to do payable approvals whilst I am away. There's likely to be one payable run.

I am currently traveling for the SBOM meeting that was held yesterday. That was highly successful and well worth doing. I am transitioning our support of SBOM / CycloneDX to Harold. There are currently no more planned in-person meetings, but the progress made yesterday was great. OWASP is back in the game. We may be able to leverage the meeting to obtain grants from the US government. I will be following up with the USG representative to make sure that we find out.

thanks,

Andrew

[Andrew van der Stock]

Yes, but the bit in the bylaws allows for federated entities. When we do the bylaw meeting, we can discuss its retention, as well as ensure we discuss the motion in the Board meeting next week. I've put it in as a vote, but happy during the board prep call to make it a discussion.

thanks

Andrew

[Martin Knobloch]

If I am not mistaken, adding items to the board meeting requires a one week notice. Definitely if that is something of that importance, we need time to discuss. 

That is why we have a process and I see no reason why we should devert right now.

Just to be clear, I am not against or in favor just yet, but we need to make sure we are guiding OWASP in a controlled matter, not in ad hoc hysteria.

Kind regards,
-martin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/CADtrMx5ndzEXhwF82LgupwyDOdfi2oD7CyOyMXuGr39%3D9GUNqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew van der Stock]

The meeting was postponed from Tuesday, so I understand your reticence in allowing a vote this close to the meeting.

I am happy for the vote to move to a discussion. It's certainly a big topic that needs careful thought.

thanks,

Andrew

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to global-board+unsubscribe@owasp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/f1a64379-db92-42a1-871b-936a35568560n%40owasp.org.

--
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+unsubscribe@owasp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/owasp.org/d/msgid/global-board/03680612-6F8D-4AF7-A068-2D2422E5858A%40owasp.org.

--
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+unsubscribe@owasp.org.