[Owasp-board] Flagship Code Products
jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon Mar 31 01:17:36 UTC 2014
I strongly disagree. I'm also a volunteer, not just a board member and you
should listen to me and other project leaders who are distraught with what
is happening. The board should also listen to Joanna (a participant on the
project board) who questions the direction and leadership here as well.
When the board notes that operations are being handled wrong (just my
opinion at this point) it's our duty to step in. I'm not taking solo action
here other than strongly stating my position, and was responded to with
personal attacks. When someone brings a concern and the reply is a series
of personal attacks, the correct individual is often the one who is not
making it personal.
Time for the board to step in, but no action will be taken without a board
On Mar 30, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org> wrote:
I disagree with your framing this as a big mess.
While the projects are certainly important - the boards role is doing
things like I am to bring projects, money and sponsorship to OWASP. As well
as working out the long term strategy for OWASP.
And, while I recognize that you may feel this is the most imperative thing
- it is really an operations issue; and so you are meddling in operations
instead of doing the board level functions which you are responsible for.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> Yes but the OpenSAMM was the only one widely distributed and it confused
> all the project teams. Something serious is amiss here, not to mention
> Joannes comments that the advisory board is not really happening and there
> is little actionable guidance being given. Time for the board to step in
> and clean up this mess.
> Jim Manico
> (808) 652-3805
> On Mar 30, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
> That is why OpenSAMM is only one of several questionnaires developed for
> rating project maturity and quality.
> The other questionnaires address your concerns.
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>> It's a bad idea Dennis in my opinion. None of the OpenSAMM items address
>> things like is the project being maintained, are bugs being fixed (code
>> projects), are we doing internationalization (doc projects) are vendor
>> neutrality items addressed and many other qualitative measurements that
>> make a project flagship. Most project leaders (you know, the ones who do
>> the actual work) find this form to be very confusing when trying to measure
>> a project.
>> Also, a project may only address one tiny area of OpenSAMM but do it
>> *really well* and would therefor be worthy of flagship or other positive
>> status. The opposite is true, a project may address all of OpenSAMM but be
>> be poor quality and not worthy of anything but incubator.
>> OpenSAMM is a fine way to categorize a project, but not rate it for
>> Jim Manico
>> (808) 652-3805
>> On Mar 30, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Dennis Groves <dennis.groves at owasp.org>
>> I personally proposed the use of our very own best of breed application
>> maturity model known as OpenSAMM. And it was adopted by the technical team
>> for use in evaluation of the projects.
>> OpenSAMM intentional or not is based on the Capability Maturity Model;
>> and the capability maturity model is a standard created by Carnegie Mellon
>> University and required by many DOD and U.S. Government contracts,
>> especially software development. The CMM is the result of several PhD level
>> sciences coming together in an interdisciplinary model.
>> By standing on this bedrock of history, we promote our own derivative of
>> the CMM, a project known as OpenSAMM; and this is a great idea because we
>> want to promote the adoption of OWASP and the use of its projects. And
>> OpenSAMM is rooted in this history of great science and is one of our very
>> best projects because of this heritage, not to mention all the love and
>> attention that was given to it.
>> Second, CMM is based on a scientific method known as the Rarsh Model,
>> which allows you to statistically analyse the question, allowing you to
>> identify the subset of data where people are talking from experience.
>> Third, it defines a set of four buckets; Governance, development,
>> verification and operations - and for the very same reason we can use
>> OpenSAMM from everything to an SDLC to evaluating the maturity of an entire
>> enterprise security management system of a company (as I have done
>> literally hundreds of times, this our flavour of a CMM and it is much, much
>> more than an SDLC tool as I demonstrated now twice.)
>> In the case of OWASP we derived all three values from using OpenSAMM as
>> the basis for the project evaluation criteria. However, it should also be
>> understood that it was only one of several questionnaires used in
>> evaluating the project maturity.
>> I also hope you will understand that OpenSAMM is much more than an SDLC
>> tool; but that it inherits much of the science that went into the CMM and
>> CMMI and can be used similarly.
>> And as a side note additional value was derived as well, we learned that
>> most projects did not fall into the Governance or Operational categories,
>> but into the development and verification catagories.
>> In other words - OWASP is failing to give complete advice about how to
>> deal with cyber-security! (Opportunities for growth!)
>> We are over focused on development and verification - this is stuff
>> *everybody* has advice for. (Pen-Testing and Development)
>> This has allowed us to branch out into areas where there is less
>> competition such as the CISO guide (which I personally partially-funded,
>> from one of my chapters) and the operational project I am working on now
>> with BCS and GNU to start and fund a new OWASP project. Because we can
>> create unique value in those spaces, keeping OWASP relevant!
>> In order to remain relevant OWASP requires a long-game strategy (the
>> project evaluations are part of that), we will not remain relevant if we
>> keep playing in the same sandbox with everybody else. The project
>> evaluations were part of understanding what that strategy maybe and how to
>> expand our current offerings.
>> This is basic education for MBA's (like Samantha) and business management
>> like the awesome OWASP Foundation Staff (Sarah and her team).
>> What is most disappointing to me is that there are people in this thread
>> calling community activities stupid; and not seeking to understand why
>> something was done and what value it created.
>> Dennis Groves, MSc
>> Email me, or schedule a meeting.
>> This email is licensed under a CC BY-ND 3.0 license.
>> Stand up for your freedom to install free software.
>> Please do not send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
>> Send OpenDocument instead!
> Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
> Email me, <dennis.groves at owasp.org> or schedule a meeting<http://goo.gl/8sPIy>
> *This email is licensed under a CC BY-ND 3.0
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/deed.en_GB> license.*
> Stand up for your freedom to install free software.<http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot/statement>
> Please do not send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
> Send OpenDocument <http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/> instead!
Dennis Groves <http://about.me/dennis.groves>, MSc
Email me, <dennis.groves at owasp.org> or schedule a meeting<http://goo.gl/8sPIy>
*This email is licensed under a CC BY-ND 3.0
Stand up for your freedom to install free
Please do not send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents.
Send OpenDocument <http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/> instead!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board