Governance/ProjectSponsorship - Revision history

MichaelCoates at 19:16, 2 May 2014

2014-05-02T19:16:53Z

Sarah Baso at 01:59, 30 October 2013

2013-10-30T01:59:19Z

Abraham Aranguren at 21:24, 9 October 2013

2013-10-09T21:24:25Z

MichaelCoates: /* Additional Comments */

2013-10-09T20:52:14Z

‎Additional Comments

MichaelCoates: /* The Options */

2013-10-09T20:51:56Z

‎The Options

MichaelCoates: /* Additional Comments */

2013-10-09T20:50:27Z

‎Additional Comments

MichaelCoates: /* Additional Comments */

2013-10-09T20:49:01Z

‎Additional Comments

Clerkendweller: Grammar

2013-10-09T13:27:09Z

Grammar

Clerkendweller: /* Additional Comments */ Typo correction

2013-10-09T08:04:47Z

‎Additional Comments: Typo correction

Clerkendweller: Three additional comments added

2013-10-09T08:03:49Z

Three additional comments added

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 2 May 2014
Line 119:		Line 119:

	Answered Questions 864 (100.0%)		Answered Questions 864 (100.0%)
		+
		+	= OWASP Output from this process=
		+	[[Project_Sponsorship_Operational_Guidelines]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 30 October 2013
Line 101:		Line 101:
	#*[[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above. Note: I updated the section "How are logos handled" to better include this item.		#*[[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above. Note: I updated the section "How are logos handled" to better include this item.
	#*[[User:Abraham_Aranguren\|Abraham_Aranguren]] ([[User talk:Abraham_Aranguren\|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I think Option 2 is the only one that makes sense: Option 1 is too demanding for a project leader and would ensure chaos, flame wars and inconsistency across OWASP. Option 3 shuts the door to potentially useful revenue sources, we have seen with examples like Rapid7 and Metasploit or SpiderLabs and ModSecurity that open source and commercial businesses can cooperate and feed each other successfully. We might be able to figure out a way to appropriately recognise non-sponsored contributors for "doing it without being paid" to counter the disadvantages of Option 2.		#*[[User:Abraham_Aranguren\|Abraham_Aranguren]] ([[User talk:Abraham_Aranguren\|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I think Option 2 is the only one that makes sense: Option 1 is too demanding for a project leader and would ensure chaos, flame wars and inconsistency across OWASP. Option 3 shuts the door to potentially useful revenue sources, we have seen with examples like Rapid7 and Metasploit or SpiderLabs and ModSecurity that open source and commercial businesses can cooperate and feed each other successfully. We might be able to figure out a way to appropriately recognise non-sponsored contributors for "doing it without being paid" to counter the disadvantages of Option 2.
		+
		+	= 2013 Election Referendum Results =
		+
		+	* Option 1: 130 Votes (15.0%) - See details above
		+	* Option 2: 429 Votes (49.7%) - See details above
		+	* Option 3: 192 Votes (22.2%) - See details above
		+	* Option 4: 107 Votes (12.4%) - "I don't have an opinion on the topic"
		+	* Option 5: 6 Votes (0.7%) - Write in:
		+	**A Mix Of 1 And 2 Where We Have A Process But We Can Chose To Modify It With Enforced Limitations
		+	** Abstain
		+	** Any Of The Above But All Monies And Activities Are To Be Published/disclosed (eg If A Company Takes The Leader/team/board To An Event/meal, It's Publicly Available So That We Know Who's Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth Is & Who's "buying" Our Brand
		+	** Hybrid Of 2 & 3 ... When A Specific Project Is Sponsored Directly, Some Percentage Of The Sponsorship Goes To Owasp To Support Projects Across The Ecosystem, And The Remainder Goes Directly To The Project.
		+	**Merge 2 And 3; Sponsorship Include Project And Foundation Funding. Project Acknowledgement Is Individual Contributors Only. Sponsor Page Lists Projects Supported.
		+	**Will Feel More Comfortable Voting Once I Have A Chance To Start Coming To Some Of The Meetings And Meet The People
		+
		+	'''Summary'''
		+
		+	Answered Questions 864 (100.0%)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 9 October 2013
Line 100:		Line 100:
	# [[User:Clerkendweller\|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller\|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - The issue of branding/logos on project outputs hasn't been addressed, but might be expected as well by sponsors, or might be desired by some project contributors. For example a logo on a tool UI or in a tool's help pages, or a logo on a document front cover or on an inside page.		# [[User:Clerkendweller\|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller\|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - The issue of branding/logos on project outputs hasn't been addressed, but might be expected as well by sponsors, or might be desired by some project contributors. For example a logo on a tool UI or in a tool's help pages, or a logo on a document front cover or on an inside page.
	#*[[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above. Note: I updated the section "How are logos handled" to better include this item.		#*[[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above. Note: I updated the section "How are logos handled" to better include this item.
		+	#*[[User:Abraham_Aranguren\|Abraham_Aranguren]] ([[User talk:Abraham_Aranguren\|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I think Option 2 is the only one that makes sense: Option 1 is too demanding for a project leader and would ensure chaos, flame wars and inconsistency across OWASP. Option 3 shuts the door to potentially useful revenue sources, we have seen with examples like Rapid7 and Metasploit or SpiderLabs and ModSecurity that open source and commercial businesses can cooperate and feed each other successfully. We might be able to figure out a way to appropriately recognise non-sponsored contributors for "doing it without being paid" to counter the disadvantages of Option 2.

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 #*[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:50, 9 October 2013 (CDT) That hasn't been flushed out in these options. But my initial thought is a project could choose to reject sponsorship under option 2.
 # [[User:Clerkendweller|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - The issue of branding/logos on project outputs hasn't been addressed, but might be expected as well by sponsors, or might be desired by some project contributors. For example a logo on a tool UI or in a tool's help pages, or a logo on a document front cover or on an inside page.
-#*[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above.
+#*[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above. Note: I updated the section "How are logos handled" to better include this item.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ||No
 |-
-| '''How are logos handled (placement, cost, logo size, etc)'''
+| '''How are logos handled (placement, cost, logo size, etc) both on the wiki page and within any output/deliverable (e.g tool, documentation)'''
 ||<!--Option 1-->
 At the sole discretion of the project leader
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 By OWASP wide standard policy for project sponsorship. Logos would be included at a standard place for all projects.
 ||<!--Option 3-->
-Sponsors of the OWASP foundation are on a dedicated sponsorship page which may include the logo
+There are no project sponsors. Instead sponsors of the OWASP foundation are on a listed dedicated sponsorship page which may include the logo.
 |-
 | '''How are company contributions acknowledged?'''

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 # [[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (CDT) - Example comment with signature
 # [[User:Clerkendweller|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller|talk]]) 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - Re Andrew V's comment to list - also need to discuss "how can projects spend their money"
-##
+#*  [[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:50, 9 October 2013 (CDT) I agree. I also consider this to be a separate issue from the sponsorship and branding (though tightly related). I'd like to tackle this large piece and then move on to the next item of clarifying how projects can feel empowered to easily use their resources
 # [[User:Clerkendweller|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - For Option 2, will the project leaders have the ability to opt out from having their own work branded by someone else - for a period, and/or forever?
-##
+#*[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:50, 9 October 2013 (CDT) That hasn't been flushed out in these options. But my initial thought is a project could choose to reject sponsorship under option 2.
 # [[User:Clerkendweller|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - The issue of branding/logos on project outputs hasn't been addressed, but might be expected as well by sponsors, or might be desired by some project contributors. For example a logo on a tool UI or in a tool's help pages, or a logo on a document front cover or on an inside page.
-[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above.
+#*[[User:MichaelCoates|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates|talk]]) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (CDT) Good point. I do think this should be clarified in the options above. For option 1 it is determined by the project leader. For option 2 it would be defined as a consistent approach across all projects and there would be a sponsor acknowledgement area within the output. For option 3 it would be a non-issue since all sponsorship is done for the OWASP organization. I'll add a new row with this info above.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:03, 9 October 2013
Line 94:		Line 94:
	Use this space to provide additional comments on any of the existing text. For example, perhaps you disagree with something that is above. Please note your thoughts in this section.		Use this space to provide additional comments on any of the existing text. For example, perhaps you disagree with something that is above. Please note your thoughts in this section.
	# [[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (CDT) - Example comment with signature		# [[User:MichaelCoates\|MichaelCoates]] ([[User talk:MichaelCoates\|talk]]) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (CDT) - Example comment with signature
		+	# [[User:Clerkendweller\|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller\|talk]]) 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - Re Andrew V's comment to list - also need to discuss "how can projects spend their money"
		+	# [[User:Clerkendweller\|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller\|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - For Option 2, will the project leaders have the ability to opt out from having their own work branded by someone else - for a period, and/or forever
		+	# [[User:Clerkendweller\|Clerkendweller]] ([[User talk:Clerkendweller\|talk]]) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) - The issue of branding/logos on project outputs hasn't been addressed, but might well be expected as well by sponsors, or might be desired by some project contributors. For example a logo on a tool UI or in a tool's help pages, or a logo on a document front cover or on an inside page.