Re-imagining the Waspy Awards
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew van der Stock
Aug 11, 2025, 9:34:57 PMAug 11
to Global-board
Hi Board,
With the latest Waspy Awards once again not drawing even 15% of the voting public, it's time to reconsider how they operate. They highlight those who have been OWASP MVPs, but with such low participation percentages, it's tough to justify continuing the process.
The Waspy Awards were established no earlier than 2012. There is no record of whether they were established by the Board or staff in the Board voting history dating back to 2011, so I guess that it was an idea suggested by the Board or our community, and given to the staff to implement. In 2012, it even had a sponsor, which we've not done for a long time.
From 2012 to 2017, nominations came from the community and were voted on by OWASP Members. Voting percentages were never very high, but there was a lot of activity around the nomination process. The result was a popularity contest that rewarded people with large chapters or community, but not necessarily those who had been true MVPs. Many of the winners are no longer a presence in OWASP today, which also suggests that the nominations were towards folks who had helped out a lot in one year, but had not consistently been a huge part of our community. Lastly, there was no staff vetting of nominations to eliminate those who whilst publicly MVPs, were privately not living the OWASP Core Values and Code of Conduct, especially towards staff interactions. I'm not saying any of the nominees or winners from that period were like that, but this is an issue that the current process does deal with.
Voting was only available to OWASP Members, which is both a member benefit and to ensure the integrity of the Waspy Awards and avoid ballot stuffing and other irregularities.
Since 2020, the Waspy Awards have been restarted. The process was revised and designed to avoid the popularity contest of the old way by asking the staff to nominate their MVPs, including those who are unsung heroes of OWASP, and letting the community vote. As mentioned above, this also eliminates some who privately don't live up to OWASP's Core Values and Code of Conduct with their staff interactions, to be removed from nominations without hurt feelings.
Whilst well-intentioned, the post-2020 Waspy Awards have had low participation rates. This most recent nomination process has caused discontent within the community, and voting rates have been low. I think the end result has been the right result—OWASP's MVPs—but the process needs more buy-in from our community.
I will canvas the community in Slack and via Member Email communications to get involved in the Slack conversation. I will start a channel for this now and encourage folks to get involved so that the 25th Anniversary Waspy Awards are something the community wants and have a higher participation ratio than today.
With the latest Waspy Awards once again not drawing even 15% of the voting public, it's time to reconsider how they operate. They highlight those who have been OWASP MVPs, but with such low participation percentages, it's tough to justify continuing the process.
The Waspy Awards were established no earlier than 2012. There is no record of whether they were established by the Board or staff in the Board voting history dating back to 2011, so I guess that it was an idea suggested by the Board or our community, and given to the staff to implement. In 2012, it even had a sponsor, which we've not done for a long time.
From 2012 to 2017, nominations came from the community and were voted on by OWASP Members. Voting percentages were never very high, but there was a lot of activity around the nomination process. The result was a popularity contest that rewarded people with large chapters or community, but not necessarily those who had been true MVPs. Many of the winners are no longer a presence in OWASP today, which also suggests that the nominations were towards folks who had helped out a lot in one year, but had not consistently been a huge part of our community. Lastly, there was no staff vetting of nominations to eliminate those who whilst publicly MVPs, were privately not living the OWASP Core Values and Code of Conduct, especially towards staff interactions. I'm not saying any of the nominees or winners from that period were like that, but this is an issue that the current process does deal with.
Voting was only available to OWASP Members, which is both a member benefit and to ensure the integrity of the Waspy Awards and avoid ballot stuffing and other irregularities.
Since 2020, the Waspy Awards have been restarted. The process was revised and designed to avoid the popularity contest of the old way by asking the staff to nominate their MVPs, including those who are unsung heroes of OWASP, and letting the community vote. As mentioned above, this also eliminates some who privately don't live up to OWASP's Core Values and Code of Conduct with their staff interactions, to be removed from nominations without hurt feelings.
Whilst well-intentioned, the post-2020 Waspy Awards have had low participation rates. This most recent nomination process has caused discontent within the community, and voting rates have been low. I think the end result has been the right result—OWASP's MVPs—but the process needs more buy-in from our community.
I will canvas the community in Slack and via Member Email communications to get involved in the Slack conversation. I will start a channel for this now and encourage folks to get involved so that the 25th Anniversary Waspy Awards are something the community wants and have a higher participation ratio than today.
If this fails to turn around the participation rate for our 25th Anniversary, we need to seriously consider making Distinguished Lifetime Members the sole award for OWASP MVPs and possibly broadening the nomination and qualification process to include community input.
thanks,
Andrew
thanks,
Andrew
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages