[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Wed Apr 1 14:23:35 UTC 2015

I think the idea that folks who are mentors and those who vote per the
committee be a different group is a great idea. That kind of transparency
and separation of duties is always helpful in terms of keeping critics at
bay. We want to avoid the impression that mentors could pick friends above

And Johanna, I think it's also a great idea to create a different set of
rules than GSOC since this program would be 100% OWASP!

The •only• concern I have is about age, we have a legal requirement to
remove that. :)

Jim Manico
(808) 652-3805

On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:35 AM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>

Its about setting rules and I based the information regarding Gsoc based on
the many threats I read in the mailing list and based on discussions when I
was at Google. I'm 40 years old and I do understand the situation regarding
age, but I already clarified my point.

Many project leaders have mentioned their dissatisfaction regarding how the
program Gsoc at OWASp has been run , the rules/criteria are just *an
example* are only a way to put some neutrality and order, I'm not saying
this *must *be this way or another

And btw I do not want to participate in this initiative. So please consider
me out of it and run it as you want it.



On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou <
Konstantinos at owasp.org> wrote:

> Johanna,
> We already have a similar very successful program we are running for a few
> years now (GSOC) and a few initiatives like the code sprint. I don't
> understand why we need to reinvent the wheel here. Project leaders will
> propose the best candidates and the selection committee just oversees the
> process.
> In any case I would strongly suggest that you choose your wording more
> carefully as in some cases you are creating the wrong impressions.
> For example, Google never calls or e-mails universities to check student
> status. It even rarely asks for something more than a simple statement from
> the students.
> GSOC does not have a a_huge_ amount of deserting students. Where do you
> get this information from? Google has approx. 150 mentoring organizations
> every year and hundreds of students. Yes, some of them disappear over time
> but they are a small minority. Do you really think that they would still be
> running GSOC if they had a huge number of students that disappeared?
> I'll also have to disagree with a few of your thoughts. I am older than 35
> and I am actually consider joining another postgraduate program. Why am I
> suspicious?
> Why do all projects need to have the same amount of slots? Project A might
> only get only 1 solid proposal. Project B might get 3 excellent ideas. Why
> not give Project B 3 slots and Project A 1 slot? Contribution is important
> but should not be mandatory. Last but not least every mentor should be
> responsible for supervising his/her student and making sure that progress
> is made. Having a formal wiki/blog or similar to formally report progress
> on a weekly basis just adds up on the workload without providing any real
> and valuable feedback.
> Let me get back to what I originally said: we are already running this for
> GSOC every year. Why do we need to reinvent this now that we only want to
> run it on a much smaller scale?
> Kostas
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:10 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Hi Fabio
>> I think we need to separate the roles. All volunteers are welcome but
>> they should not be mentors
>> Example: If I'm a mentor I cannot be in the selection committee.
>> I agree that the selection committee cannot select the best candidates
>> for project leaders, therefore I propose that the pre-selection of
>> candidates is done by the mentors/project leaders
>> The selection committee evaluates the candidates that the project
>> leaders/mentors have chosen for the project
>> Project leaders/mentors must evaluate based on a criteria that the
>> selection committee has prepared, for example:
>>    - Age of the candidate (candidates older than 35 are suspicious ;-))
>>    - Which university/ study year attending
>>    - A proof of attendance on that university and we need to confirm
>>    this is true (Google does this)(someone must call the universities/get an
>>    email)
>>    - Proposal must be completely filled in to qualify
>>    - A clear statement and motivation why is he/she  the best candidate
>>    - All projects should have the same amount of slots (1 or 2)
>>    - History of the candidate: is he/she a contributor or is this the
>>    first time? if the student is already a contributor, he/she gets a plus
>>    point
>>    - A short CV experience of the candidate with the
>>    technology/programming language to be used
>>    - All project leaders and students must have a blog/wiki reporting
>>    their weekly progress, so the committee can check how is everyone doing
>>    - Most important of all: In order to qualify the student must commit
>>    a small contribution. This will help filter the students that are
>>    serious.(like the Outreach Program for women)
>> As you also know, Gsoc has a huge amount of deserting students or
>> students with double jobs. This is a situation we do not want to have, so
>> anything that sets the bar high will help to filter serious students from
>> phoney ones
>> Regards
>> Johanna
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Johanna,
>>> I wanted to follow up regarding this initiative...
>>> Would you agree that other volunteers could also be part of the project
>>> selection committee?
>>> I would welcome an open & transparent process where anyone is able to
>>> participate.
>>> I think is specially important for project leaders to be part of the
>>> student selection process, because they know their project needs.
>>> If there are any deviations or misconduct from any of its members, then
>>> the committee could rapidly take corrective actions.
>>> A good starting point for looking at potential participating projects is
>>> below:
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC2015_Ideas
>>> We need to probably rebrand it to OWASP Summer Code Sprint (in alignment
>>> with OWASP Winter Code Sprint run later in the year).
>>> For info: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Winter_Code_Sprint
>>> The main difference is that we will pay students during Summer Code
>>> Sprint.. I’m suggesting USD 3K per student up to a max of 10 slots (30K).
>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>> Regards,
>>> Fabio Cerullo
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundation
>>> https://www.owasp.org
>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 20:08, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> Josh
>>> I would like very much to help during this process but it is clear that
>>> if I do this (and in order to avoid any conflict of interest)
>>>    - I will not mentor any projects (in the past I was a mentor for
>>>    ZAP, WebgoatPHP, OWTF)
>>>    - Help create a selection criteria based on the project health
>>>    criteria review
>>>    - Have a strong selection criteria for students similar to Gsoc and
>>>    make sure projects follow up these guidelines
>>>    - Communicate this clearly so tehre are no misunderstandings
>>> I have added Timo who is also helpinbg us with the project reviews and
>>> have developer experience that can help us asses projects
>>> regards
>>> Johanna
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> I didn't participate in past GSoC at any level and really don't feel
>>>> particularly qualified to assemble this program.  It would require way more
>>>> research than my time currently allows.  My stipulations for support were
>>>> stated in my earlier e-mail:
>>>>    - Have a pre-defined scope for the opportunity with specific
>>>>    milestones required
>>>>    - Have a pre-defined award for completing the opportunity
>>>>    - Publicly publish any and all opportunities so that anyone can
>>>>    express an interest in them
>>>>    - Have a formal selection process with ideally a committee of
>>>>    leaders making the selections
>>>>    - Those involved in the selection process cannot also submit
>>>>    - Those involved in the selection process are also responsible for
>>>>    assessing completion
>>>>    - All work produced is provided under the same open source license
>>>>    as the project
>>>> As long as a proposal (from whoever doesn't really matter) adheres to
>>>> these, then I feel that I can put my support behind it.
>>>> ~josh
>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  In principle, I like the idea, because I can see how it helps
>>>>> inspire students work in the security field.
>>>>> For the amount: I think we could choose any amount and number of
>>>>> projects that would seem meaningful and affordable. E.g. we could also
>>>>> scale back to 5 projects or what we feel makes sense. GSoC did not start
>>>>> with 10 projects at the beginning.
>>>>> Small thing: our pockets are not as deep as Google's, so I am a bit
>>>>> more cautious on what we get in return for this investment.
>>>>> Would maybe Fabio, Josh and someone else like to call together and
>>>>> hash out differences for a proposal to the board?
>>>>> Cheers, Tobias
>>>>> On 04/03/15 03:49, Fabio Cerullo wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>  As you probably know by now, we have not been accepted to Google
>>>>> Summer of Code this year.
>>>>>  Usually, this is a major push for projects during the year as
>>>>> experienced by ZAP, OWTF, Appsensor, Hackademics, Seraphimdroid, etc. For a
>>>>> full list of ideas in 2015 please check the following URL:
>>>>>  https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC2015_Ideas
>>>>>  In order to keep the momentum going and progress those projects, I
>>>>> would like to request an extraordinary budget allocation of 30K USD to
>>>>> cover up to 10 student slots at 3K each. Usually Google pays 5500 USD per
>>>>> student during GSOC. We will use the same structure as previous years with
>>>>> Kostas/me as org admins, the project leaders who usually participate in
>>>>> GSOC (Core team) will pick the best student submissions and then a group of
>>>>> dedicated OWASP volunteers who every year act as mentors for the students.
>>>>> We could establish a mid-term and full term evaluation where if a student
>>>>> is failed mid-term he/she will only receive half the funds (1500 USD). If
>>>>> the student is approved full term, he/she receives the full amount (3000
>>>>> USD).
>>>>>  I understand this is a non-planned expenditure, but considering the
>>>>> importance of GSOC in the last couple of years to progress OWASP coding
>>>>> projects, I think is imperative to take some action considering the current
>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>  If you have any questions, please let us know.
>>>>>  Thanks
>>>>> Fabio
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Owasp-board mailing list
>>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
Owasp-board mailing list
Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150401/a48a7e7a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list