[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal

Fabio Cerullo fcerullo at owasp.org
Tue Apr 7 13:28:41 UTC 2015


Tobias,

Thanks for your comments.

I think an escalation procedure on step #5 is in order in case there is a disagreement between the org team and the project mentors team about slots.

So I would like to formally request a budget of USD 30K (3K per slot with a max of 10 slots) to move ahead with this process.

I will appreciate the support from fellow Board members to make this happen.

Thanks,

Fabio Cerullo
Global Board Member
OWASP Foundation
https://www.owasp.org

> On 7 Apr 2015, at 13:49, 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 <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 <https://www.owasp.org/>
>>> On 6 Apr 2015, at 20:07, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150407/99f810c5/attachment.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list