We would drop the lab designation, and only have Incubator and Flagship projects. Flagship projects would be voted on by the community, and our resources would go towards developing the Flagship projects, based on community input. Incubators would get less attention and support.

• This approach keeps both Flagships and Incubators under the same program.
• This model would remove resources from Incubators and funnel the majority of resources into the Flagship Projects.

This approach separates focus areas into two separate programs. One will focus on increasing the quality of a handful of projects selected by the community, and the other program will focus on developing a platform for new leaders that facilitates innovation, research, and testing.

• This approach would take two community requests (increase quality, platform for innovation), and separate each request into to programs.
• This method allows the foundation to have clearly defined goals for each program.

This is the approach we are currently using. This approach requires that the community conduct project reviews to graduate projects, and it requires a twice yearly project audit to demote projects that are currently inactive.

• Current approach
• This model requires a large task force of community reviewers to make sure our project graduation process is functioning to an acceptable level.

At the sole discretion of the project leader

By OWASP wide standard policy for project sponsorship. Logos would be included at a standard place for all projects.

There are no project sponsors. Instead sponsors of the OWASP foundation are on a listed dedicated sponsorship page which may include the logo.

At the sole discretion of the project leader

The same as individual contributors. However, since an individual can list their company name a company with many volunteers to a project would see their company name listed multiple times on the project acknowledgement page.

The same as individual contributors. However, since an individual can list their company name a company with many volunteers to a project would see their company name listed multiple times on the project acknowledgement page.

At the sole discretion of the project leader

All contributors will have their name, email address, company (if desired) listed on the contributors page for the project.

All contributors will have their name, email address, company (if desired) listed on the contributors page for the project.

1. Very decentralized and scalable, no impact on operations staff
2. Project leader empowerment

1. Revenue generation
2. All contributors get recognition
3. Companies that allow employees to work on a project will show many people with @company.com contributors

1. Maintains focus on OWASP, less dilution of OWASP brand
2. Centralized location for sponsorship recognition. - Wall of fame

1. Lack of consistency across projects
2. No clear engagement on how contributors get involved
3. May be open to abuse due to lack of standards

1. Individuals and companies that contribute lots of time may be trumped (in recognition) by any company that donates money
2. Corporate Logos on projects may cause vendor neutrality concerns and discourage contribution

1. A company would not have any branding/advertising incentives to sponsor a project that could use the funds

1. ...

1. ...