[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal
johanna curiel curiel
johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Tue Apr 7 14:46:46 UTC 2015
What do you think? I don’t have time to setup the wiki, etc at present but
would welcome your help.
I think the rules based on stages seems quite fair to me, however, that is
my opinion ;-), another important criteria should be how many mentors are
available per project to provide guidance. I think 1 project leader per
student should be the minimum (Google uses 2 mentors per project/proposal)
Also it should be clear , in case a mentor is not able to followup or
continue with mentoring what should be done and who should follow up this
(the org team), therefore , when volunteers want to be part of the
program(whether org team/mentor) they must know their responsibilities,
after all , we don't want to waste money well intended.
Fabio, if you have no time to set the wiki, someone must take the lead to
do this, based on what you have proposed, it seems to me that the
person responsible or in-charge of the program should do this. Is it clear
who is this person? (will it be Kostas? other ones?)
When i take an initiative, I have always followed these steps
(wiki-proposal, publish info, get reactions/adapt) so it is as much
transparent as I can do. It is a lot of work but this is part of
our responsibilities when managing these kind of initiatives.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
> Thanks for asking.
> I thought about the slot allocation and maybe the criteria is the
> ‘maturity’ of the project.
> So, based on the project current status: Incubator, Lab, Flagship it is
> decided the max amount of slots.
> Flagship: Max 3 slots
> Lab: Max 2 slots
> Incubator: Max 1 slot
> What do you think? I don’t have time to setup the wiki, etc at present but
> would welcome your help.
> Fabio Cerullo
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundation
> On 7 Apr 2015, at 15:24, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>
> 5) Finally, the org team in conjunction with the project mentors team then
> decide how many slots each project will get.
> I think , in order to avoid any conflict of interest, the org team members
> should be an independent member with no ties to any of the participating
> 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.
> A clear criteria should exist before any approvals are exercised.
> The board should ask :
> *Do we have clear criteria for this program?*
> In my opinion, no, just a bunch of emails.
> *Has it been openly defined for all potential participating members and
> project leaders?*
> No, it should be published on a Wiki and send through the community
> /owasp-leaders list for people to comment and agree. At least a clear
> proposal should be setup and published.
> After this process then I think we could go ahead and approve, because its
> clear what are the rules for participation. There are still some
> issues that I see as potential conflicts such as *for example*:
> - How many slots can a project get?
> - Should a project get more slots than others?
> - Based on what *exact* criteria should we provide slots?
> - Should the org team have tights (such as being an active volunteer)
> to the participating project(this can be conflict of interest)
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> Fabio Cerullo
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundation
>> 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:
>> 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
>> 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
>> On 6 Apr 2015, at 20:07, Jim Manico <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
>> (808) 652-3805
>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Fabio Cerullo <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.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board