[GPC] DRAFT GPC Goals - RFC ASAP

Thomas Brennan tomb at owasp.org
Sat Oct 22 09:19:15 EDT 2011


As always your welcomed to work with the committee and community in a constructive manner.


On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich at owasp.org> wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> I have read the documentation provided by the GPC i.e. http://sl.owasp.org/gpcws-jun11-proceedings#h.4z9gh8ff79fg and I would like their final decision to be reconsidered by the OWASP Board based on the references cited below and that a second round of RFP be issued with GitHub being approached.
> 
> 1. The SourceForge interface presented to the end user/consumer is bland and would therefore result in the OWASP Project developing their own "presentation" view independent of SoureForge.  This is also argued within http://usersinhell.com/why-sourceforge-lost/.  Github allows the Project Leader to develop their own presentation view using http://pages.github.com/
> 
> 2. There is no distinction made in the intended use or technical nuances of git vs svn i.e.
> svn, via it properties, allows files to be marked as executable, i.e. svn:executable, and/or as a specific mime-type, i.e. svn:mime-type.  svn is therefore ideal for "tool" projects as the source code is configured automatically to the end user's operating system which therefore facilitates easier building by the end user.
> As git is based on distributed repositories it would therefore allow the GPC fulfil their request to have a copy of the source code by cloning the git repository at scheduled intervals without placing an additional burden on the Project Leader. "git-svn" would provide the ability for the GPC to clone each svn repository in git also.
> Also, the ability for the GPC to mark specific git cloned repositories as private repostories on GitHub would allow them visibility in the development activity of a "Incubator" project, hosted as a git repository at https://www.dropbox.com/ for instance. 
>     
> 3. The ability to for an end user to make a comment on the source code which references specific line number(s), commits, etc i.e. https://github.com/features/projects/codereview or post patches with version control similar to pastebin i.e. https://gist.github.com/ has not been considered in the RFP.
> 
> 4. There is a significant cost saving as "Organizations [accounts] are free for open source" as quoted from https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations
> 
> 5. GitHub is more popular in a number of metrics than Sourceforge i.e. http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/06/github-has-passed-sourceforge.php and therefore has a smaller barrier for entry with the wider open source community.
> 
> 6. GitHub doesn't require an end user to know the relevant svn or git commands to review the commit history or activity of each leader/contributor i.e. https://github.com/features/community and the metrics and their associated presentation to the end user can be expanded by reusing http://www.ohloh.net/p/dic (as an example OWASP Project) and http://www.ohloh.net/tools for comparison with other OWASP projects.
> 
> 7. Having OWASP as an listed "Organization" on GitHub would promote OWASP in the wider community and hence we should not considered a closed stand alone project hosting implementation e.g. http://fi.github.com/
> 
> Also, I listened to https://www.owasp.org/download/jmanico/owasp_podcast_88.mp3 and Jason Li doesn't provide the reasons for approaching https://launchpad.net/ (as an example) considering their intended use is for OS development, i.e. http://www.ubuntu.com/
> 
> That stated, I noted that the cost for OWASP to host this ourselves is extremely overpriced due to the selection of overpowered hardware.  This could be clarified by approaching https://dev.launchpad.net/ for a suggested hardware platform.
> 
> Obviously, in light of the reference to https://dev.launchpad.net/ above, an Organization Account with GitHub is the outright winner over SourceForge based on the points raised above.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/user:cmlh
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global-projects-committee/attachments/20111022/b04cbf2c/attachment.html 


More information about the Global-projects-committee mailing list