[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal

Konstantinos Papapanagiotou Konstantinos at owasp.org
Tue Apr 7 12:57:39 UTC 2015

Regarding step #5, last year we asked project leaders to provide the number
of slots they would like to get, match them with corresponding proposals
and provide short justifications. In the very few cases that the org team
considered that the requested number was not feasible (e.g. Not enough
mentors) we contacted the project leaders and managed to solve every issue.
In the end every leader got the slots they requested.
I suggest we either follow this approach or pre-assign let's say 1 slot per


On Tuesday, April 7, 2015, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  Sounds fair to me.
> With one suggested addition: if there is disagreement in step #5, I like
> to see this reported to the org team / board / community for resolution
> without conflict of interest.
> If the teams agree with the resolution of step #5, I am happy and favour
> to go ahead. If there is serious disagreement, I like to hear about it.
> Best, Tobias
> On 07/04/15 05:33, Fabio Cerullo wrote:
> Jim,
>  Please allow me to explain a submission process might work for everyone:
>  1) Student review the ideas suggested by mentors. For example, GSOC 2015
> Ideas: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC2015_Ideas
> 2) Based on those ideas, the students submit their own ideas/projects.
> Usually there are dozens of ideas submitted by students, some are good,
> some are poor, and some are completely new. The mentors are not involved at
> this stage other than answering questions to the students. There is a
> deadline for the students submission.
> 3) The 'project leaders/mentors team' are the ones who evaluate and pick
> the best students proposals because they know about their projects. In the
> past, we allowed all mentors to score all proposals and that is what caused
> an issue because some people ‘down voted’ other proposals to let their own
> proposals to score higher.
> 4) The 'org team' makes sure that there is no wrong doing by reviewing
> scores/etc. Last year, the issue above was identified by Kostas/staff and
> it was promptly addressed. An additional control that could be implemented,
> and we were hoping to implement this year at GSOC, is that no mentor could
> vote on other project proposals (e.g. ZAP mentors cannot down vote on OWTF
> proposals and viceversa). So that will bubble up naturally all the best
> proposals for each corresponding project based on scores from the project
> leaders/mentors.
> 5) Finally, the org team in conjunction with the project mentors team then
> decide how many slots each project will get.
>  Does it sound fair?
>  Fabio Cerullo
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> https://www.owasp.org
>  On 6 Apr 2015, at 20:07, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim.manico at owasp.org');>> wrote:
> I suggest the mentors work with students to make great proposals and
> have a •different group vote on who wins•. The whole issue was mentors
> voting on projects and we should consider avoiding that if we
> replicate a similar program at OWASP.
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
> On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fcerullo at owasp.org');>> wrote:
> The ‘Mentors team’ will review/score the proposals and select the best
> ones with an oversight from the ‘Organisation Team’.
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-board mailing listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20150407/e3f5026a/attachment.html>

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list