@dcontesti wrote:
@AppDefects wrote:
@dcontesti wrote:
@wimremes wrote:
Why the membership would put forward a candidate that already served for 15 years (or more?) and simultaneously complain about board members seeking a second term is frankly beyond me.
@wimremes Yes, I served on the board for a while Not sure it was 15 years but won't argue that point. I would like to go back and look at history:
Diana Contesti
Independent Candidate for the (ISC)2 Board Ballot.
The current Chairperson did not have kind words for @dcontesti and the all amazing work she did. Who forced her off the Board? Why was there a need to change the Bylaws? The post only hints at the internal politics in passing and I quote: I'll let you use your imagination to think of all the reasons why that may be.
To the best of my knowledge when Wim Remes came to the board (I was not a board member at that time), he stated that members were unhappy with the turn over on the board and stated the largest complaint he heard had to do with term limits, so the By-Laws committee were charged with reviewing the by-laws and coming back to the board with recommendations. That was in 2014 whilst I was not on the board. The new by-laws were not presented to the board (once Richard took the committee) in (I believe) 2015).
This is factually incorrect. I came to the board when you were on the board in 2012. At that point, term limits were not a priority. The concern when I tasked the bylaws committee to look at the term limits were that there was no natural influx of new ideas. This was also influenced with our improved ability to actually maintain a history of board activity and decisions by adoption a Board Management System. Term limits are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" but seeing the results even just 3 years after adopting them (I also wasn't on the board in 2015 when they were implemented under the leadership of Dr. Corey Schou), I am even more convinced that we made the right choice.
That said, I am also convinced that you are not the right candidate for the (ISC)2 Board. Unfortunately there is a lot that I am not allowed to talk about. Which you obviously know. Here is a few things that I do think matter:
1) When I joined the board in 2012, you were the primary enforcer of a strict "the board speaks with one voice" policy. This effectively blocked communications by a board member to the membership. The divide between the membership and the board was huge. Today, any board member can speak their mind even on contentious issues, as JJs posts on LinkedIN prove. Even as chair, she can voice her opinion without the board getting their panties in a twist over it (distracting from doing actual work). This is great.
2) The board had no interest in a large contingent of the membership, namely those that practiced offensive security. They were "hackers" and "bad guys", not worthy of being called professionals. I personally took Hord to his first DEF CON group meetup in London and worked below the radar to represent those that didn't matter. You nor most of the other board members at that time had any interest in those members until they could mean something for you. If the org connects with a more diverse set of members today, that is not your work.
3) When I joined, ISC2 claimed to be an international org but all decisions were driven out of Tampa with little understanding of the other regions. Since then, the regional offices got their own management teams with their own P&L so they could execute locally based on their knowledge of the region. Not before we got rid of that one contracting firm that did sales for ISC2 on a parasitic contract with almost 0 incentive to benefit the membership and largely build on their existing relationship with management and board members (again, why term limits were important).
4) The board, since 2012, has moved from a very tactical and transactional approach to a strategic approach leaning fully on governance and oversight. The organization has a PAID and skilled management team to execute on the strategic decisions. While I don't discount your contributions to the organization at all, your strength is in hands-on tactical work where the board needs individuals that can work on the strategic level.
5) I have never experienced you as someone that thrived in a diverse group seeking consensus. Your way of working is built on "divide and conquer" and filling voids of leadership.
6) I do not feel that your current "platform" is truthful, based on my most recent experience with the ISC2 board, and my experience with you. While you know better, you feed on perceived dysfunctionality of the board very much like a recent US Presidential candidate. The ISC2 membership isn't a flyover state. The org has never been more performant or invested more in its membership ($10M just last year, not even counting the DETE investment over the past years) and the board has never been more diverse while at the same time being cohesive and engaged.
Maybe it is time to take a step back and look at why you really want to be a board member (again) and what the benefit is for the membership because I, for one, am pretty sure that once their votes are behind your name, you will ignore them just as much as you did before.
Sic semper tyrannis.
