[Owasp-board] Proposing New Process to Accept Incubator projects
johanna curiel curiel
johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Sep 1 22:16:22 UTC 2014
An updated process. Project coordinator approves process using the
checklist and posts the checklist submission to the project task force
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:03 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
> >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
>> 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,
>> 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:
>> and I have created this one for Code/Tools
>> 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
>> - Does the project has a clear roadmap for the coming 3 months?
>> - Does the project has an open/public repository containing
>> - Does the project has an open documentation containing the
>> 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
>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 101441 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Owasp-board