[Owasp-board] Proposing New Process to Accept Incubator projects

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Sep 1 22:03:55 UTC 2014


>It might be worth thinking about how we can move projects to the next
stage above incubator (when they qualify) relatively quickly and then give
more promotion and visibility to these projects.

Agree but I think we need to discuss that in another threat since this one
is about starting incubator projects

>IMO, it is essential in the OWASP spirit that projects can be started as
easily and quickly as possible (the process to jump through all the hoops
should not take longer then 3 days (absolute maximum 7 days)). If this is
not possible with the new proposed process steps, I would suggest to cut
them. If this is a problem, I would also be open to create a pre-project /
pre-incubator stage at which a project can start with at least page edits
and a mailing-list.

Is about having a checklist and , I agree that we can take the objections
part away. The project coordinator should be able to use this checklist
and approve AS LONG AS ALL INFO is complete. Half empty wiki pages, no
code with a repository or draft documentation means the project cannot
start. Since the submission goes through salesforce the
team cannot see what was submitted. If the Project review team sees
something they don't agree, then they can control the
checklist and feedback with the project review team. Remember the Project
coordinator is part of the project review team

The project IDEAS page is a pre-incubator page like the Google summer of
code, same concept here.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Hi Johanna,
>
> small question:
> Could you please provide the link to the "IDEAS incubator page"?
>
> In principle, these requirements look simple enough.
> It is important in my eyes that it is easy for people to start things.
>
> One remark:
> your point #2 about objections "Does anyone has any objections to his/her
> project(reactions from leaders/community)?Please, create a summary of
> objections"
> I think this is worded in a potentially misleading or ambiguous way:
> - the only relevant objections should be procedural problems like breach
> of brand usage, company logos, or that the topic is obviously not about
> security, etc.
> We should not ask about objections on the content or theme.
>
> Maybe a thought:
> in theory, "incubator" could have been as the name suggests a project that
> is not yet standing on its own feet, so we should be relatively open easy
> on it.
> Problems might have come potentially from that we grant full project
> benefits for projects in incubator status and also did not have the
> resources to move projects from incubator to normal status quickly.
> Personally, I will admit as project lead I never really bothered with
> which level (incubator, ...) my project has as long as people are using it
> and working on it.
>
> It might be worth thinking about how we can move projects to the next
> stage above incubator (when they qualify) relatively quickly and then give
> more promotion and visibility to these projects.
>
> IMO, it is essential in the OWASP spirit that projects can be started as
> easily and quickly as possible (the process to jump through all the hoops
> should not take longer then 3 days (absolute maximum 7 days)). If this is
> not possible with the new proposed process steps, I would suggest to cut
> them. If this is a problem, I would also be open to create a pre-project /
> pre-incubator stage at which a project can start with at least page edits
> and a mailing-list.
>
> My 2cents,
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
>
> On 01/09/14 14:25, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>
> Board and Task Force members
>
>  A while ago we discussed the introduction of a new process for accepting
> Incubator projects and based on your feedback I created the following
> process(see attached file)
>
>  In order to automate this process, such as the review of the proposal by
> the committee, a checklist should be used by the project coordinator and
> all submission should be posted to the project review taskforce team for
> feedback.Submission at the moment go through the Salesforce platform forms .
>
>  We already have a very good example template for documentation projects:
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Documentation_Project_Template
>
>  and I have created this one for Code/Tools
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Example_Incubator
>
>
>  Proposed Checklist(to be done by project coordinator):
>
>    - Does the future project leader discussed his/her idea on the IDEAS
>    incubator page?
>     - Does anyone has any objections to his/her project(reactions from
>    leaders/community)?Please, create a summary of objections
>     - Does the project has a complete description for their wiki template?
>     - Does the project has a clear roadmap for the coming 3 months?
>     - Does the project has an open/public repository containing
>    code?(Code/Tools/doc)
>     - Does the project has an open documentation containing the
>    draft(Documentation)
>
>  All information must be complete in order to start a project, especially
> the information that must be placed on the wiki template
>
>  Your feedback appreciated. The changes here will be implemented in the
> wiki page
>
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Project#tab=Starting_a_New_Project
>
>  regards
>
>  Johanna
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20140901/ec5a87c0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list