The platform used to “manage” committee activity was limited to the wiki. This required committee chairs to maintain their wiki page and required potential members to complete cumbersome wiki pages to apply for the committee. Both of these activities, over time, became overlooked. Information was not updated and often potential members were ignored.

OWASP has consolidated its operational platform to work on the Salesforce platform. The overhauled operational platform provide the staff with the tools to better facilitate committees (not run them) with the ability to track members, member activities, topics, and needs in an open to all format. Additionally, this platform provides a place for committee and subcommittee engagement to occur.

Committees became an all or nothing group. This created meetings with months of planning and no real activity. Also, committee members were asked to participate in all of the committee activities and not just the tasks (or sub activity) that interested them or that they had time for.

The 2014 committee platform proposes a tiered structure that would allow the committee to exist at a high level, and have “sub committees” or “task forces” to be created under the umbrella of the global committee.

Initially, the committee members were recruited for a one year term. The committee members were to elect a committee chair who would serve as the point of contact for the committee. Evolution of the committee led to the perception of “lifetime” terms and members who “signed up” but never participated and felt like they could never leave.

The tiered committee structure allows a smaller group to lead or steer initiatives and sub committees. The leadership group will commit to a one year term, and the initiatives within the group will be task oriented and therefore have a deadline and a defined end point for the participants. An open call for participants for each new task or initiative allows for individuals who are no longer interested in participation to step away.

The selected committee chairs became unwilling recruits who stepped in out of necessity or default. As such, much of the “objectives” of the committees fell to the staff to complete.

A key core committed group driving initiatives with variable lengths will allow the global community to participate in the activities that interest them for the length of time that it may require.

For some of the committees and committee chairs, the lack of a defined objective was a huge roadblock. The committees were created and provided a very broad segment. This lack of mission created disjointed efforts.

The committees should be assigned, not to a broad area of operations, but to the strategic goals as set by the Board. By collaborating as a global community with the opportunity to define a roadmap for a goal will allow for the committee members to be successful and to see progress.

The 2008 committees worked, for the most part, independently of each other. This often created duplicate or even conflicting efforts leading to frustration.

The core leadership group will work as one unit. Each leader will chose a particular goal, and the leaders will monitor each other and interact on a regular basis to develop the initiatives and task force groups.

The 2008 committees were assigned a board member to provide leadership and oversight. This created some reluctance from committee members to be daring and definitive.

The committees should not be managed by the board of directors. The board needs to show trust and encouragement for the community to experiment and to be successful. Board members can not participate as core committee members, but can provide input and participate in any of the task force initiatives as a community member.

The final decline of the committees occurred when a committee would bring a proposal to the board and have the board veto the committee chairs and members. This sent the message to the chairs that the efforts they were putting into the committees was done in vain.

Proposals brought forward from the committees should be voted upon by the community (or community leadership). The community decision should be considered valid. Implementing a process for a trial period of 6 months to a year would be sufficient to determine if it was beneficial for the organization. This also reinstates the sense of ownership the community has in the organization.