[Owasp-board] The draft version for the new season of code is ready for your review

Dave Wichers dave.wichers at owasp.org
Thu Feb 21 18:47:19 UTC 2008

I'm ok with the name. I don't think we should require release quality for
new projects. However, if work is being done on an existing project, we
might want the require Release Quality being one of the target goals of the
effort. I would think we should require at least Beta Quality, which implies
we need to define what that means.  I took a stab at finishing what I think
belongs in the 3 categories for Tools.




From: Paulo Coimbra [mailto:paulocoimbra7 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:15 PM
To: Dave Wichers; Dinis at Ddplus. Net; Jeff. Williams at Owasp. Org; 'Sebastien
Deleersnyder'; 'Tom Brennan'
Cc: alison.mcnamee at owasp.org
Subject: The draft version for the new season of code is ready for your


Hi all,


The draft version
<https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Winter_Of_Code_2008>  for the new
season of code is ready for your review - I will await your feedback and
agreement on this to trigger the opening of the program.


There are, however, specific questions on which I need your feedback.


First, the question of season of code's name - I have completed the referred
draft using the designation OWASP Winter of Code 2008 (WoC 08) despite
Dinis' warning that I should use OWASP Spring of Code 2008. I did so for two


On the one hand, at the time, almost all pages were already created and it
was easier to finish it using the same logic. On the other hand, I think the
designation OWASP Spring of Code 2008 can originate confusion given the
similarity with the OWASP Spring of Code 2007. My proposal would be to use
the designation OWASP Summer of Code 2008 - the good thing about it is that
we have already the logo. Having said that, as soon as we have a definite
designation I will make the necessary changes.


Second, on 'Operational Rules' I have added the following rule: "Each
project should obtain Reviewer's agreement that a Release Quality stage was
achieved". My first question is whether you agree with this addition. The
second one has to do with the link on Release
t_Scale_for_OWASP_TOOLS_Projects>  Quality pointing to the Project
Assessment page. As you know, that page has never been reviewed and I built
it based on several contributions that I caught from the emails exchanged on
this subject. These contents need therefore to be stabilized and reinforced.


I am looking forward to having your thoughts on this,




Paulo Coimbra



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20080221/f44af3a1/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list