[Owasp-leaders] Part 1: Where should OWASP invest the 90, 000 USD funds available for the next season of code?

[Sherif Koussa]

Correct Artuto
GA (General Availability) = RA = Ready to use by the general public without
any major bugs, with enough documentation and with the major functionality
implemented within an acceptable range of quality measure.

Basically, I am talking about this page here
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Project#tab=Release_Quality_Projects

I am suggesting that SoC 09 would be targeted towards making more projects
join the Release Quality tab and less and less in the Beta or Alpha tabs. If
you look at the Alpha tab, there are more than 50 projects there. Wouldn't
it be cool to get those 50 into the release quality state versus having
another 50 join them?

Regards,
Sherif

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman <
buanzo at buanzo.com.ar> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Alpha, Beta and Release quality. Should be "RA" I guess.
>
> Stephen Craig Evans wrote:
> > Sherif,
> >
> > What is "GA state" and is their a criterion for that? Sorry, it's late
> > here and I'm too tired and lazy to look it up.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Sherif Koussa <sherif.fathy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I am not aware of the circumstances that led to projects stuck in Alpha
> or
> >> Beta. I totally agree that it is the mandate of every person proposing a
> >> project to take all the way to GA state. However, I thought that some of
> >> these projects maybe have been developed outside the realm of SoC
> seasons,
> >> so it might be a good idea to give them projects a push.
> >> But I am totally against bailing out projects :)
> >> I guess my main idea is: since there might not be a SoC 2010, so I think
> it
> >> is valuable to get as much projects to a GA state as possible vs having
> more
> >> projects in Alpha or Beta states, whether this means sponsoring only
> some of
> >> the current Alpha and Beta projects (provided that it wasn't just a left
> >> over from a previous SoC) or sponsoring less new projects but making
> sure
> >> they make it all the way to a GA state.
> >> Regards,
> >> Sherif
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Craig Evans
> >> <stephencraig.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Sorry to speak a little harshly, but the people in charge of the
> >>> projects should have finished their goals and put them in their
> >>> appropriate Beta or Released stages.
> >>>
> >>> Are you suggesting a bailout for projects that did not meet their
> >>> commitments?
> >>>
> >>> I think that the Global Projects committee has done a wonderful job
> >>> to-date in setting the parameters for self-imposed policing of each
> >>> person's project. That is their mandate.
> >>>
> >>> If somebody has a Beta or Alpha project that wants upgrading, they
> >>> should have to compete with everybody else that has new projects and
> >>> new, cool ideas.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Stephen
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Sherif Koussa <sherif.fathy at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I would suggest to put all the money towards finishing up existing
> >>>> projects
> >>>> whether at Beta or Alpha stages. I'd rather see 15 GA projects rather
> >>>> than
> >>>> 100 or 200 Betas and Alphas.
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Sherif
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:14 AM, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Ok, we are about to launch the OWASP Season of Code 2009 grant
> >>>>> sponsorship
> >>>>> program (next week in Crakow (OWASP EU AppSec)), but, before we spam
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> with all its details (and a number of ideas for
> >>>>> projects/research/activities), I would like to just ask you a must
> >>>>> simpler
> >>>>> question:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Where should OWASP invest the 90,000 USD funds available for the
> next
> >>>>> season of code?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please take into account that given the current financial outlook, we
> >>>>> might NOT be able to do another Season or Code next year (2010)
> unless
> >>>>> we
> >>>>> have a substantial increase in Corporate Memberships (or find
> >>>>> additional
> >>>>> sponsorship funding sources). Note that currently, we really don't
> have
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> budget for the 2010 Summit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dinis
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephencraigevans
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> - --
> Arturo "Buanzo" Busleiman / Arturo Busleiman @ 4:900/107
> Independent Linux and Security Consultant - SANS - OISSG - OWASP
> http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/eng.html
> Mailing List Archives at http://archiver.mailfighter.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAkoEPqQACgkQAlpOsGhXcE3yxQCeJ1J+dDxpsewW29BST4K4QSyw
> Z7MAn0ybTo2SjvBfvt+i5QkKTO7cR3g9
> =wgbd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20090508/c4b2a7f0/attachment-0001.html