[GPC] SoC '09, RFP questions

Jason Li jason.li at owasp.org
Thu May 14 13:45:41 EDT 2009


3) The rationale for changing "Release" quality to "Stable" quality
was because it was becoming cumbersome to talk about "alpha releases",
"beta releases", and "release releases".

All of these are types of "releases" and our anecdotal studies showed
that people found it confusing. Even in the "real" world, I don't
think there's any true consensus on "version naming". Alpha and beta
are pretty universal in their usage. But you'll find many projects
like Eclipse and various Linux distributions that characterize their
high quality releases as the latest "Stable" release while other
projects just simply drop the alpha/beta tag from the version number
to indicate the project is ready for prime time. "Stable" was the best
"qualifier" we could find to differentiate between quality levels of
releases.

4) I don't believe that the grants were ever intended to cover the
actual "cost" of work. My view is that SoC offers the opportunity for
OWASP to "encourage" its community to produce something of value. In
previous years, there have been some items that have been granted
based on actual costs - things like graphic design that were
contracted out to "real" companies. However, that was more a function
of the fact that OWASP did not have a framework to fund activities
other than through SoC. We recently abstracted the OWASP Grant
framework away from SoC to account for this so it's my expectation
that we should no longer see any SoC grants that are used to cover
"actual" costs. Such activities should now instead fall under a
general OWASP grant.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not sure why there's a mention of
"up to 20k" in the guidelines: Dinis | GPC - can anyone comment on
this?

--
-Jason Li-
-jason.li at owasp.org-



On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Boberski, Michael [USA]
<boberski_michael at bah.com> wrote:
> Jason, a few follow-up questions:
>
> Question #3. What was the rationale from changing "Release" quality to
> "Stable" quality? I understand the intent, but do we not want to underscore
> that releases for us mean the same as in the commercial world?
>
> Question #4. Are the proposals intended to be "realistic"? E.g. there's
> mention of joint proposals up to 20k. The SoC grants were all (?) e.g. 2.5k,
> more incentive-type amounts than amounts intended to cover the actual cost
> of the work.
>
> Mike B.
>
> ________________________________
> From: li.jason.c at gmail.com [mailto:li.jason.c at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jason
> Li
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:48 PM
> To: Boberski, Michael [USA]
> Cc: paulo.coimbra at owasp.org; Global Projects Committee
> Subject: Re: [GPC] SoC '09, RFP questions
>
> Mike,
> I was not able to attend the recent meeting the GPC had in Poland regarding
> the SoC protocol, but here was my understanding of it prior to that meeting
> and I do not believe the rules of engagement have changed.
> With regards to your first question, yes, we are relying more on project
> proposals this year. We are hoping for this season of code to be geared more
> towards improving existing projects rather than create a new wave of new
> projects by having a list of projects as in the previous year. That is not
> to say that we will not accept any new ideas - any proposal will be accepted
> for review by the SoC Jury. But rather than provide a list of ideas which
> encourages a tide of new projects, we're hoping to focus on improving
> existing projects while still allowing new and innovative project ideas to
> pop up.
> Also, as you may have seen in traffic on the list, we are currently in the
> process of identifying projects that have been abandoned by their project
> leaders and it's our intention to include these projects as an adoption
> option for SoC when it is officially launched next week.
> In regards to your second question, this discussion was undergoing much
> debate but I believe the conclusion was that there is no mandate to reach
> any particular quality level. It will be up to the project proposer to
> create a clearly defined roadmap with milestones and for the proposer to
> identify which quality level they wish to reach. The SoC Jury will examine
> the project roadmap and deliverables and take into consideration whether the
> quality level identified in the roadmap is appropriate for the amount of
> work proposed for the project. As appropriate, the SoC Jury will provide
> feedback on proposals if they feel the quality level is too low.
> As an extreme example, a project proposal to create a one page cheat-sheet
> for CSRF that selects "Alpha" quality will most likely be referred back to
> the proposer with a request that the proposal target "Stable" quality as the
> amount of work involved in a one page cheat-sheet should allow for reaching
> "Stable".
> On the other hand, a project proposal to create a comprehensive security
> framework like ESAPI for say, PHP, that selects "Alpha" quality may be
> viewed more favorably because the expected work involved may be considerably
> more.
> Regardless of the quality level selected, the SoC Jury will also be judging
> the project roadmap to ensure that the deliverables and milestones
> are appropriate; payment for SoC will be directly tied to completion of the
> project's proposed milestones in the roadmap and therefore it is expected
> that the roadmap will include significant detail about the work involved.
> Hope that helps! LMK if you have further questions.
> --
> -Jason Li-
> -jason.li at owasp.org-
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Paulo Coimbra <paulo.coimbra at owasp.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>>
>>
>> I thank your interest and pertinent questions and I am carbon copying the
>> Global Projects Committee as its members may want to provide the adequate
>> answers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Paulo Coimbra,
>>
>> OWASP Project Manager
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Boberski, Michael [USA] [mailto:boberski_michael at bah.com]
>> Sent: quinta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2009 16:27
>> To: Paulo Coimbra
>> Subject: SoC '09, RFP questions
>>
>>
>>
>> Paulo, looking at
>> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Season_of_Code_2009, I have a few
>> questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Question #1. Is it correct that there is not a list with specific requests
>> for proposals as was done with the SoC '08, that instead you're relying on
>> participants to propose specific projects, ideally that fall within those
>> four listed areas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Question #2. Do projects need to reach Alpha or Beta quality?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike B.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Global-projects-committee mailing list
>> Global-projects-committee at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global-projects-committee
>>
>
>


More information about the Global-projects-committee mailing list