[Owasp-board] Google Instant Messaging?

Sebastien Deleersnyder Sebastien.Deleersnyder at telindus.be
Tue Jan 15 19:22:03 UTC 2008


OWASP "Quality Defenders" or something similar? Also related the other
question on qualifying/rating the OWASP pages ?
I have no problem with mentor: we should not have too much different
roles?

What about the incubator system at ASF:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management

Regards

Seba

-----Original Message-----
From: Dinis Cruz [mailto:dinis at ddplus.net] 
Sent: 15 January 2008 14:42
To: Sebastien Deleersnyder
Cc: Dave Wichers; OWASP Board; Paulo Coimbra
Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Google Instant Messaging?

What I like about that idea is that it will scale much better since we
(owasp-board) 'only' have to worry about the mentorship activities and
the quality of the support provided.

We would then be able to strategically reward 'good mentors' with high
profile OWASP projects. This would create a nice reward system which
would allow proactive 'memtors' to gain good visibility

Thinking about this, one question I have is on the use of the word
'mentor' since we might have cases where less experience or less
'street credibility' persons could be 'mentoring' another 'higher
profile' project. So we might want to call it something else relate to
'project management' (which is essentially what they would be doing)

This would also reserve the mentoring word for something I would like
to see implemented which is the 'OWASP mentoring program' where
experienced OWASP leaders pro actively help other's as mentors (as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor)

Dinis

On 1/15/08, Sebastien Deleersnyder <Sebastien.Deleersnyder at telindus.be>
wrote:
> Dinis,
>
> Fully agree.
> It will increase the involvement of people and generate more synergies
> between the projects.
> We should assure that these mentors are 'enablers' and do not become
> bottlenecks: i.e. this should be on request of the project leader.
>
> Regards
>
> Seba
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Dinis Cruz
> Sent: 15 January 2008 14:27
> To: Dave Wichers; OWASP Board
> Cc: Paulo Coimbra
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Google Instant Messaging?
>
> Following these great ideas (and I agree with dave that we need to
> move this to the wiki), I would like to propose that each project is
> assigned (at least) two 'mentors' which are a current owasp-leader who
> will be the ones that will be responsible for performing a first level
> of confirmation that the criteria have been meet.
>
> This would also be like a mentorship program which would encourage
> project leaders to collaborate and get to know each other.
>
> In fact we should put as part of an (older than 6 months) OWASP
> project leader the requirement that they need to 'mentor' / 'review'
> two other OWASP project
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dinis
>
> On 1/14/08, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this structure for capturing this info is fine, but should
> > eventually go into the wiki of course. As to the number of
> requirements, I
> > have already proposed what I think should be required for release
> quality,
> > at least initially, if we want to add a few more requirements, I'll
> > entertain them, but I'd prefer to keep it relatively  should for the
> moment
> > (i.e., 10 or less).
> >
> >
> >
> > Beta quality should be less of course, and finally Alpha quality
> should not
> > have any requirements hardly other than some basics:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1)      Project Page at OWASP (this should be added to the others as
> well)
> >
> > 2)      Description of tool including purpose, category, and a few
> examples
> > of use.
> >
> > 3)      Code publicly available via Google or Sourceforge
> >
> > 4)      Link to download runnable or installable tool
> >
> > 5)      Mailing list for project created?
> >
> >
> >
> > I know of a few Alpha tools that don't meet requirement #3, like
> Sprajax (I
> > believe) for example.
> >
> >
> >
> > And that's probably about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we set things up so there are like 4, 7, and 10 requirements
> (approx)
> > for the 3 categories?
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, can you rename the category you created to: Category: Release
> Quality
> > OWASP Tool. I think you'll have to create this and delete the old
one
> since
> > you can't actually move a category.
> >
> >
> >
> > The 6 categories we will need are:
> >
> >
> >
> > Release Quality OWASP Tool
> >
> > Beta Quality OWASP Tool
> >
> > Alpha Quality OWASP Tool
> >
> > Release Quality OWASP Documentation
> >
> > Beta Quality OWASP Documentation
> >
> > Alpha Quality OWASP Documentation
> >
> >
> >
> > When these 6 categories are created, we can then assign one of these
> > categories to each project.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Paulo Coimbra [mailto:paulocoimbra7 at gmail.com]
> >  Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:03 PM
> >  To: 'Dave Wichers'
> >  Cc: Dinis at Ddplus. Net
> >  Subject: RE: Google Instant Messaging?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> >
> >
> > My Google Instant Messaging ID is paulocoimbra7 at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > As for your question, yes, my idea was to create three distinctive
> > categories of projects (Alpha, Beta and Quality Release).
> >
> >
> >
> > To help making myself clear, please see the attached file.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I see this question, each category should have a certain amount
of
> > requirements/criteria to accomplish.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition, the last category (Quality Release) implies that all of
> its
> > requirements, as well as the ones defined for the categories below
> (Alpha
> > and Beta), have been accomplished.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I was saying, in this kind of approach, to have a project
> classified as
> > belonging to Alpha category means that this project has accomplished
> all the
> > first 8 criteria. In the same way, to have a project classified as
> belonging
> > to a Beta category means that this project has accomplished all the
> first 15
> > criteria. For Quality Release category, logically, the same
principle
> should
> > be followed - in this case, 27 criteria must be accomplished.
> >
> >
> >
> > Next, about the table that I am sending now, please note, that I
have
> not
> > software writing skills and, as a result, my manipulation of the
> criteria
> > inside of the purposed ranking, which had mainly a demonstrative
> purpose,
> > must be verified. It was essentially a formal exercise/contribution
> aiming
> > to help in setting up a methodology to manage projects. Therefore,
> criteria
> > certainly can, and should, be modified, added or eliminated.
> >
> >
> >
> > To conclude, this email is already very long, if you want, drop me a
> line.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > pauloC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: Dave Wichers [mailto:dave.wichers at owasp.org]
> >  Sent: 11 January 2008 18:14
> >  To: 'Paulo Coimbra'
> >  Subject: Google Instant Messaging?
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you have a GoogleInstant Messaging ID? Mine is dwichers at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > I was trying to do work more on the OWASP Project Release Quality
> page, and
> > was wondering why you made it a category. Was the idea to put each
> project
> > into that category if it is release quality, and create similar
> categories
> > for Beta and Alpha?
> >
> >
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing list
> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>



More information about the Owasp-board mailing list