This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org

Difference between revisions of "OWASP Board Meeting December 1, 2009 Agenda"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(Attempt to fix formatting and add a few issues)
Line 33: Line 33:
  
 
==Finance Report==
 
==Finance Report==
 +
 
- YTD
 
- YTD
 +
 
- 2010 Budget
 
- 2010 Budget
  
 
[http://www.owasp.org/images/7/7c/P%26L_as_of_Nov_09.pdf P&L as of Nov 2009]
 
[http://www.owasp.org/images/7/7c/P%26L_as_of_Nov_09.pdf P&L as of Nov 2009]
  
−
  - We need to produce an annual report similar to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/WMF_20072008_Annual_report._high_resolution.pdf
+
  - Proposal - The Foundation should produce an annual report similar to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/WMF_20072008_Annual_report._high_resolution.pdf.  I suggest that we draft one (many of the materials are available) and target a Q1 release - perhaps along with the T10.
  
  
Line 44: Line 46:
 
==Committee Reports==
 
==Committee Reports==
  
−
- [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Committee_Pages Global Committees]
+
- Please review [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Committee_Pages Global Committee Reports] before meeting
  
 
- Board Member 3 Month Rotation of Global Committees Oversight (Draw Straws)
 
- Board Member 3 Month Rotation of Global Committees Oversight (Draw Straws)
Line 58: Line 60:
  
  
−
===Wrap of election process:  From Dan Cornell===
+
===OWASP Election Process===
  
−
We didn't have a strong policy on who would be allowed to vote and that led to some confusion during the election and could have led to a lot of troubles.  For example, the current Board was added to the election process during the conference whereas the previous decision had been to have them not vote.  One person had contributed to OWASP for several years, but did not meet the specific criteria but we set them up with a vote anyway.  Two people renewed their expired memberships during the election and were also given a vote.  None of these decisions were necessarily wrong, but it would have been good to enumerate our policies publicly beforehand so that less was left to discretion during the election.
+
- Proposal to adopt the process followed in the recent board election as OWASP's standard election process, with action items for the membership committee to resolve before the next election:
 +
* examine the policies around who will be allowed to vote
 +
* work on email address problems (including mass email service)
 +
* define policies surrounding campaigning
 +
* explore "approval voting" instead of mandatory 2 candidate vote plicy
 +
* define process for releasing the results
 +
* work with voting system vendor to do security testing?
  
−
-It was hard to collect accurate info about the voters -  most specifically their email addresses.  We actually had one of the candidates emails (Eoin's) incorrect as well as a number of bounced emails from well-known OWASP contributors such as Alex Smolen.  Tom Brennan's work with Salesforce.com may help in this area as we will have a single repository of people's "true" contact information.
 
−
 
−
-We had one identified problem with people not receiving ballot emails (John Steven) and possibly others that went unreported.  The assumption is that some sort of edge spam filter caught the message at a point where it could not be found later.  This is hard to combat as OWASP is a virtual organization and we need to rely on email to communicate.  Calling or snail mailing every member is not a practical alternative.
 
−
 
−
-There was no up-front policy on how we let folks campaign.  Was the wiki the only place to post the info or was emailing the Leaders list acceptable as well?  We ended up with some traffic on the mailing list toward (and past) the end of voting.  No one complained about the use of the leaders list, but I could see a world where that might have rubbed some folks the wrong way.
 
−
 
−
-There was some dissatisfaction (one person) who did not want to have to vote for two candidates because they only knew one of the candidates and did not want to vote for someone they did not know.  That is a fair input although I'm not sure that we should necessarily change our policy next time.  After all - many voters might not have met any of the candidates, but could have voted after reviewing their position information on the wiki.
 
−
 
−
-We needed a better plan for how to certify and disseminate the results.  What we did was ad hoc (calls, emails to candidates, emails to lists) and that could have been pre-planned.  Prior planning would have let us disseminate the results more quickly.
 
−
 
−
-We used VoteNet's password generation and mass email service for the first email and that cost an extra $350 (I think)  That probably could have been avoided, as I wrote a Perl script (attached) to send the subsequent mass emails.
 
−
 
−
-VoteNet's application apparently doesn't work well in Google Chrome.  Not the worst problem in the world, but something to note.
 
−
 
−
-I would have preferred to have been able to do some security testing of the voting solution prior to the vote.  I'm not sure that is practical from what is really a pretty entry-level voting solution - the VoteNet folks wouldn't let us run a test election which isn't surprising because of the cost of the election product we used.  If we were spending $5k for a vote then perhaps, but for a couple hundred dollars this is more of a transactional sale.  Everyone appeared to be well behaved this time around, but that doesn't have to be the case.  I guess I'm glad we're a "Builder" community rather than a "Breaker" community :)
 
−
 
−
-The VoteNet folks were very helpful and responsive.  My interactions with Caitlyn Radack ([email protected]) for sales and with Ramon Graham ([email protected]) for support were all very positive.  They turned around the password generation and mass email ahead of their typical two business day timeframe.
 
−
 
−
-We (well, I) made the decision to make the election anonymous and therefore not auditable.  I think that was the right call, but might be something to discuss in the future.  Also the results were not available until the end of the election and I think that was appropriate so we didn't see any bias introduced where folks selected their votes based on the current leaders in the election.
 
  
 +
===Brazil Conference Issues===
  
 +
Discuss the resolution of issues raised about AppSec Brazil
  
−
===Brazil Conference Issues===
+
'''Can we be more specific about the recommended actions here so the board can approve?'''
  
−
Discuss the resolution of issues raised about AppSec Brazil
 
 
* The issue was initially raised publicly on a couple of mail lists as well as the GPC call on Nov. 23rd
 
* The issue was initially raised publicly on a couple of mail lists as well as the GPC call on Nov. 23rd
 
* Matt Tesauro has done the initial data collection about this issue
 
* Matt Tesauro has done the initial data collection about this issue
Line 99: Line 89:
  
 
[http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2009#tab=Agenda 2009 Summit]  
 
[http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Summit_2009#tab=Agenda 2009 Summit]  
 +
  
  
 
===AppSec DC===
 
===AppSec DC===
−
- Recap
+
 
 
- Profit Loss Report
 
- Profit Loss Report
 
- Is there interest in Annual OWASP Federal Conference in DC?
 
- Is there interest in Annual OWASP Federal Conference in DC?
Line 112: Line 103:
 
===Training Conference Idea===
 
===Training Conference Idea===
  
−
Offer courses in major cities
+
- Proposal to offer "OWASP" courses or training conferences in major cities.  Not certification, but evangalism through instruction (McGovern).  Allows OWASP to become the "body of knowledge" without providing a type of certification.  Cover trainer costs with a 25/75 revenue split. Model  Trainer Joe teaches a one day class in Austin.  $675 X 10 Students = $6750. Joe's expences = $1000.  Net split = %25 to Joe - $1437.50    %75 to foundation - $4312.50.  Pricing variable as possible added benefit to corporate sponsors?  Earmark funds for SOC or Public Relations?
  
−
Not certification, but evangalism through instruction (McGovern). Allows OWASP to become the "body of knowledge" without providing a type of certification
+
- [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_AppSec_Conference 2010 Agenda]
  
−
Cover trainer costs with a 25/75 revenue split. Model  Trainer Joe teaches a one day class in Austin.  $675 X 10 Students = $6750. Joe's expences = $1000.  Net split = %25 to Joe - $1437.50    %75 to foundation - $4312.50
+
- Proposal for 2011 Summit/Conference - Las Vegas
  
−
Pricing variable as possible added benefit to corporate sponsors?  Earmark funds for SOC or Public Relations?
 
−
 
−
[http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_AppSec_Conference 2010 Agenda]
 
−
 
−
- 2011 Summit/Conference - Las Vegas
 
  
  
 
==Chapters Committee==
 
==Chapters Committee==
  
−
- How many active chapters?  How many leaders showed up at Summit from them?
+
- How many active chapters?  How many leaders showed up at Summit from them? '''What is action here?'''
  
 
- Start "OWASP College Chapters" program.  Provide a full "kit" of materials to college student chapter leads.  Goal is to get a touchpoint in every college with a CS department around the world.  Chapter goals are to raise OWASP awareness by students and to influence the curriculum.
 
- Start "OWASP College Chapters" program.  Provide a full "kit" of materials to college student chapter leads.  Goal is to get a touchpoint in every college with a CS department around the world.  Chapter goals are to raise OWASP awareness by students and to influence the curriculum.
Line 142: Line 128:
 
==Projects Committee==
 
==Projects Committee==
  
−
- SOC 90K pending release of budget?? - [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings_June_09 Update]
+
- Proposal to start SOC with 90K grant [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings_June_09 Update]
  
 
- [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Crm OWASP-CRM Project] - Overview/Update/Roll-out for OWASP Foundation.
 
- [http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Crm OWASP-CRM Project] - Overview/Update/Roll-out for OWASP Foundation.
  
−
- OWASP.COM Google Domain
+
- OWASP.COM Google Domain '''what is action?'''
  
−
<insert topics>
 
  
  
 
==Industry Committee==
 
==Industry Committee==
 +
 
- Public Relations
 
- Public Relations
  
Line 196: Line 182:
  
 
- Public Relations budget 2010 (what committee)
 
- Public Relations budget 2010 (what committee)
 +
 +
 +
 +
=CLOSING=
  
 
-Date/Time of Next Meeting
 
-Date/Time of Next Meeting
 +
 +
 +
 +
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 21:50, 30 November 2009

AGENDA

http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Board_Meetings

Please review the progress of the Global Committee http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Committee_Pages and prepare your report to status on old business and new business.

When Tue Dec 1 5pm – 6pm GMT (no daylight saving) Where 1-866-534-4754 Code: 7452912855

MEETING LEADER: Jeff Williams

IDEA CATCHER: Kate Hartman


OLD BUSINESS

2009 Review of outstanding items

Outstanding items for 2010

- RFQ Outsourcing OWASP Website/Mailing Lists etc & Larry Support

- Correction Banner Ads


NEW BUSINESS

- Welcome New Board Members - Matt Tesauro and Eoin Keary


Finance Report

- YTD

- 2010 Budget

P&L as of Nov 2009 

- Proposal - The Foundation should produce an annual report similar to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/WMF_20072008_Annual_report._high_resolution.pdf.  I suggest that we draft one (many of the materials are available) and target a Q1 release - perhaps along with the T10.


Committee Reports

- Please review Global Committee Reports before meeting

- Board Member 3 Month Rotation of Global Committees Oversight (Draw Straws)


Membership Committee

- Membership Report 755 - Alison Report

- Linked'In OWASP Group Members = 4718


OWASP Election Process

- Proposal to adopt the process followed in the recent board election as OWASP's standard election process, with action items for the membership committee to resolve before the next election:

  • examine the policies around who will be allowed to vote
  • work on email address problems (including mass email service)
  • define policies surrounding campaigning
  • explore "approval voting" instead of mandatory 2 candidate vote plicy
  • define process for releasing the results
  • work with voting system vendor to do security testing?


Brazil Conference Issues

Discuss the resolution of issues raised about AppSec Brazil

Can we be more specific about the recommended actions here so the board can approve?

  • The issue was initially raised publicly on a couple of mail lists as well as the GPC call on Nov. 23rd
  • Matt Tesauro has done the initial data collection about this issue
    • Will provide the data collected both in raw and summary form.
  • Board members Dinis Cruiz and Matt Tesauro should be excluded from further involvement since both attended the event
    • Any committee member that attended should also be excluded - e.g. Pravir Chandra
  • A group consisting of at least 1 board member and several committee representatives should be created to resolve these issues
    • The group should review the collected data, further discuss with the parties as necessary and document the situation and outcomes
    • Additionally, where needed recommendations to avoid these issues in future should be presented to the board and the appropriate committee
    • I suggested that Jeff Williams be considered for the Board representation since he has a legal background.
    • My initial email to the parties in question will be forwarded to the OWASP Board list for reference.

2009 Summit


AppSec DC

- Profit Loss Report - Is there interest in Annual OWASP Federal Conference in DC? - Videos of APPSEC DC Summit online ETA ?



Training Conference Idea

- Proposal to offer "OWASP" courses or training conferences in major cities. Not certification, but evangalism through instruction (McGovern). Allows OWASP to become the "body of knowledge" without providing a type of certification. Cover trainer costs with a 25/75 revenue split. Model Trainer Joe teaches a one day class in Austin. $675 X 10 Students = $6750. Joe's expences = $1000. Net split = %25 to Joe - $1437.50  %75 to foundation - $4312.50. Pricing variable as possible added benefit to corporate sponsors? Earmark funds for SOC or Public Relations?

- 2010 Agenda

- Proposal for 2011 Summit/Conference - Las Vegas


Chapters Committee

- How many active chapters? How many leaders showed up at Summit from them? What is action here?

- Start "OWASP College Chapters" program. Provide a full "kit" of materials to college student chapter leads. Goal is to get a touchpoint in every college with a CS department around the world. Chapter goals are to raise OWASP awareness by students and to influence the curriculum.


Education Committee

- The Certification Update

- Proposed statement about OWASP getting involved in certification.


Projects Committee

- Proposal to start SOC with 90K grant Update

- OWASP-CRM Project - Overview/Update/Roll-out for OWASP Foundation.

- OWASP.COM Google Domain what is action?


Industry Committee

- Public Relations

- Special Interest Groups (result of summit) click here


OWASP Industry Outreach (OIO) -EK

A few ideas in relation to the industry outreach idea:

Objective: For OWASP to listen to industry, government, national enterprise state bodies and other standards organisations in relation to "what are the real problems facing you?" & "How can OWASP help?", "How do we mature web application security" To define a roadmap consisting of both short term and long term goals. Short term goals must support the longer term objectives.

Limit the activities defined to a very short list that is achieveable and measureable within one calendar year.

1.Invite-only event + limited OWASP leaders (cant overwhelm event with OWASP delegates!)

2.Identifying a cross-section from many verticals. (Gov, FS, Energy, Transport, Telecoms, Dev, Retail, etc) Might have a break-out session for each of the industry verticals.: Closed session where delegates can discuss openly issues facing them and challenges. Limited to 2 hours. Each group session nominates a delegate to present findings to the whole group (all delegates)

3.NDA/Code of conduct doc to be signed by ALL delegates. Organizations wont send delegates or speak openly unless there is some from of information control.

4.Wider meeting & presentations (from majority industry delegates and some OWASP) to all attendees on what issues they have, in order of priority. - we listen to industry

5.OWASP Board Panel discussion

6.OWASP industry panel meeting discussion

7. Agree and define a road map for OWASP & Industry supporting each other.

8 This may/should increase corporate sponsorship if delegates get something out of it and make OWASP more relevant to industry.

"Currently Security conferences are presented by security people security people. The Industry outreach programme is an attempt to change this model."


OTHER

-New committee - Dinis (Connections committee)

- Linked'In Group 4715 Members of Linked'In Group 37 Moderators co-sysops for discussion groups

- Public Relations OWASP Newsletter

- Public Relations budget 2010 (what committee)


CLOSING

-Date/Time of Next Meeting



Retrieved from "https://wiki.owasp.org/index.php?title=OWASP_Board_Meeting_December_1,_2009_Agenda&oldid=74488"