[Owasp-board] Flagship Code Products

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri Mar 28 13:32:06 UTC 2014


Martin,

Even though that email was not for me, it APPLIES to me. I am saying 
incredibly harsh things, I am going over Sarah's head and am discussing 
major operational issues, I am incredibly upset and probably need to 
chill out and find a more constructive ways to approach this.

Samantha, I am sorry for my harshness. I know you have a job managing 
hundreds of projects and can only do so much. I am not just throwing 
stones, I am always willing to help and get my hands dirty. I will try 
to be less combative and more collaborative.

My request is that we:

1) Build a better project evaluation *quality* document and get that out 
for Dependency Check as soon as possible
2) Force Flagship projects down a peg and make them get re-evaluated for 
Flagship status
3) Please evaluate the various projects that were donated by Mike Samuel 
and Jeff Ichnowski (OWASP JSON Encoder, OWASP Java Encoder and OWASP 
HTML Sanitizer) in an effort to get them at least beyond the incubator 
stage, it's been a long time since I requested those evaluations.

Thank you Samantha and Martin.
- Jim





On 3/28/14, 6:46 PM, martin.knobloch at owasp.org wrote:
> Sorry, copied the wrong text in my previous email was for another context!
> ..this is what I meant to say:
>
> In my opinion, the board has to decide is we want to change the 
> foundation guidelines or not (if to pay or not and by what rules)!
> The review-project-team did a really good job setting up process and 
> all during the AppSec-US in NY last year during the project summit.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -martin
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * martin.knobloch at owasp.org
> *Date: *Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:14:03 +0000
> *To: *Jim Manico<jim.manico at owasp.org>; Josh 
> Sokol<josh.sokol at owasp.org>; <owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org>
> *ReplyTo: * martin.knobloch at owasp.org
> *Cc: *OWASP Board List<owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Owasp-board] Flagship Code Products
>
> The team got intruded and abused, to be frank quite you could say 
> insulted. This behaviour killed enthusiasm of the team.
>
> -martin
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
> *Date: *Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:27:28 +0530
> *To: *<martin.knobloch at owasp.org>; Josh Sokol<josh.sokol at owasp.org>; 
> <owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org>
> *Cc: *OWASP Board List<owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Owasp-board] Flagship Code Products
>
> What happened was we hired Samantha who is responsible for these 
> things so I *backed off *while she got our house in order*. *
>
> The quality of many aspects of our projects has improved. New wiki 
> pages, new criteria and other things that make the /wrapping/ of 
> projects look better. We also have a better OWASP project "front gate" 
> to make sure proposed new projects fit the OWASP criteria better.  
> Samantha has rejected many project proposals from folks who refused to 
> open source their projects, but wanted the OWASP logo, *and I applaud 
> her for her efforts*.
>
> But recently, one of our (real) flagship projects, Dependency Check, 
> approached me to get above "incubator". Samantha gave me a form to 
> send around the internet to get people to evaluate the Dependency 
> Check project. But the evaluation form was all about OpenSAMM 
> categories that had absolutely nothing to do with project quality, I 
> got smacked around on social media a bit for sending out that like, I 
> was like WTF is going on, and it awakened the project quality police 
> beast in me.
>
> Samantha DOES have a bunch of really good QUALITY criteria evaluation 
> and THAT is what we should be using to get projects evaluated.
>
> Also, although we are have the potential of evaluating new projects 
> for quality, what are we going to do about the projects that are on a 
> pedestal that do not deserve it?
>
> While I normally agree we should keep out of operational issues, but 
> this is such a problem, and it's been a long time with little progress 
> on the *quality measurement* front, that I would like the board to 
> step in and start demoting quite a few projects that are an 
> embarrassment to life, liberty, application security and the OWASP way.
>
> Aloha,
> Jim
>
>
>
> On 3/28/14, 6:17 PM, martin.knobloch at owasp.org wrote:
>> There was a meeting with the board during the AppSec-EU 2013 in Hamburg. If I recall correctly Michael, Sarah, Jim, Tobias and Seba where present as board / global representatives.
>>
>> The question about quality and progress was one of the major items during that meeting. Sub-question, should OWASP pay for contribution to projects?
>>   
>> IIRC, the outcomes general agreed to was to pay for project contribution."if you want to get something done probably, you got to pay for it".
>> This is not 'pay all contributors' but to pay for thing being developed (lead developers with the example of Simon Bennetts with ZAP).
>>
>> Haven't heard about this ever since!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -martin
>> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Josh Sokol<josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>> Sender:owasp-board-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:25:31
>> To: Jim Manico<jim.manico at owasp.org>
>> Cc: OWASP Board List<owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Owasp-board] Flagship Code Products
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140328/dc665e00/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list