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

Fri May 8 10:44:51 EDT 2009

"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?"

HI Sherif,

This was my initial impression too, but it's why they have the Global
Projects committee.

IMHO, OWASP works from the bottom up. There is no "get those 50 into
the release quality state" that works by magic. If a project owner
wants to elevate their project to the release quality state, then they
should have to apply to the SoC 2009 and compete with fresh, new
projects.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,
Stephen

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Sherif Koussa <sherif.fathy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephencraigevans