[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer of Code Sprint Proposal

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Wed Apr 22 17:32:49 UTC 2015


So, if a chapter had less than $1000 in the budget, and the money was
already planned/committed, should we allow them to use OWASP on the Move
funds or other community engagement funding for their efforts?  I see no
difference here.  The point is that chapters and projects have money to
spend and should be encouraged to do so.  Just because an account is at $0
doesn't mean they can't do anything.  It just means that they have to use
the global pool of funds available to them and there's nothing wrong with
that.  But there is something wrong with a chapter or a project keeping
money in their account solely because there *might* be something they would
want to spend it on later.  In order for me to vote in favor of this, it
needs to be in a manner that has projects spending their money first before
being gifted Foundation funds.

~josh

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:

>  I tend to agree with Josh and Jim's suggestion on scope and funding.
> Incl. that projects could use some of their funding if available.
>
> (maybe as a small thought for a compromise on Josh's point: if a project
> has less than USD1000 in the budget, and that money is already
> planned/committed for another activity, we could exempt that amount.)
>
> What do others think?
>
> Best, Tobias
>
>
>
> On 22/04/15 17:39, Jim Manico wrote:
>
> Very reasonable. +1 Josh.
>
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>     Kostas,
>
>  I don't disagree that this is important for the Foundation's mission, but
> the devil is in the details.  This whole plan is a reaction to us not being
> accepted to the Google Summer of Code project.  It was not budgeted for
> 2015 and that means that we are taking money away from another budget in
> order to fund this.  In addition, this is not a project that OWASP has ever
> run itself in the past.  Because of this, I think we need to proceed, but
> proceed with caution and limit our liabilities.  So, I'm not really sure
> whose proposal is for what at this point, but my stipulations remain for
> support of any plan:
>
>  1) Limit funds to a reasonable amount of money.  I suggested $12k since
> that seems reasonable to me and just eats up one quarter of the funding we
> are taking from to make this work, leaving funds available for other
> project-related activities.
>
>  2) Projects must spend their account funds first before being able to use
> these funds.  I won't waiver on this.  AppSensor has $4069.73, ESAPI
> $2836.58, OpenSAMM $7323.40, and ZAP $9675.48 (
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0Atu4kyR3ljftdEdQWTczbUxoMUFnWmlTODZ2ZFZvaXc&hl=en_US&gid=3).
> All of these would easily have the ability to fund work if it were a
> priority and have elected not to do so.  Other projects have significant
> funds as well totaling over $39,544 currently "ring-fenced" for the
> projects.
>
>  So, I support the initiative, but for me to vote in favor of it I need
> for those two things to be incorporated into the plan.  I'm just one person
> though so maybe you'll have the support you need without me if you decide
> to proceed with the current proposal as written.
>
>  ~josh
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou <
> Konstantinos at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Josh,
>>
>>  When putting together this proposal, I tried to make it a win case for
>> all parties. This is why I believe it's very important for the foundation's
>> mission: we reach out to students and universities, get work done on our
>> projects and "recruit" enthusiastic contributors that will most likely keep
>> volunteering in the future.
>> Being a project leader myself, I think the initial proposal will get more
>> support from the project leaders. At the same time Fabio's approach is
>> equally or even more appealing and better balanced. I would like to have
>> support from a vast majority of the board if possible, so if you feel more
>> comfortable with Fabio's approach, we can adopt it.
>>
>>  Kostas
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  So, if projects can already spend their money any way they want
>>> (obviously with some caveats), and they haven't prioritized paying others
>>> to help with the code (whether they are students or professionals), then
>>> why should the Foundation care to spend it's money on something that the
>>> projects don't value enough to spend their money on?  I draw a lot of
>>> parallels here between projects and chapters because the conversation
>>> around money ultimately comes down to a discussion about the "ring-fenced
>>> funds" in our accounts.  Basically, funds that are currently allocated to a
>>> chapter or project, but aren't in active use, and can't be used for
>>> something else.  And with rules in place (and others being added) designed
>>> to make the chapters spend their money to avoid this situation, I see no
>>> reason why we should treat the projects any differently.  If a project has
>>> money, they need to spend it.  In addition, if it we made the assumption
>>> that it was important to invest money in our projects for such an
>>> initiative, and some projects already have this money and aren't spending
>>> it in this way, then I would choose to instead fund the projects who do not
>>> have the money to even make this choice.  In other words, we should be
>>> allocating this money to the projects who don't have money, not the ones
>>> that do.  If we cannot agree that the projects need to spend their account
>>> funds first, then we cannot agree that this money should be allocated at
>>> all.  Based on this, my vote will be "no" if a vote is requested.
>>>
>>>  ~josh
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou <
>>> Konstantinos at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Projects can already spend their money any way they want. As a project
>>>> leader, why should I give my budget to this initiative, go through all this
>>>> process and not hire instead a professional developer?
>>>> I believe that this should be an organization-level initiative that
>>>> can include projects with no budget; driven as an OWASP initiative not a
>>>> (for example) ZAP-OWTF-Hackademic side-project. Projects that have budget
>>>> can go out on their own and look for students or developers in a probably
>>>> more effective way.
>>>>
>>>>  Kostas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   I would like to see a couple of changes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) I'm not sure it makes sense to use $30k of the project funding for
>>>>> this one initiative.  It consumes 60% of the funding for a far smaller
>>>>> percentage of our active projects.  OWASP also has no history with running
>>>>> this initiative ourselves so I would prefer to limit our exposure here the
>>>>> first time around.  I would rather see us allocate $12,000, roughly 25% of
>>>>> the overall budget allocated to projects.  This burns our budget for one
>>>>> quarter, but leaves sufficient budget for the rest of the year.  It is
>>>>> enough to fully fund 8 students at the $1500/student price tag which seems
>>>>> like a reasonable place for us to start this initiative.  If the initiative
>>>>> is successful, then I would consider increasing the funding when budgeting
>>>>> for next year.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I have not seen any stipulation here stating that projects must use
>>>>> their project funds before being able to use Foundation funds.  This is a
>>>>> requirement for all chapters using community engagement funding and should
>>>>> apply equally to the projects.  Saying that project a with money can buy
>>>>> additional slots is not the same thing as saying that they need to use
>>>>> their funds first.  If we all agree that funds are allocated to be spent,
>>>>> not saved, then I see no reason why projects with funds should not be
>>>>> encouraged to spend funds in their account first and foremost.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully support the initiative, but would like to see these
>>>>> limitations placed on it before voting yes on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>  ~josh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I fully endorse this initiative and think is aligned with our
>>>>>> mission and strategic goals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I appreciate the comments regarding the budgeting and we could
>>>>>> lower them to a level which everyone feels comfortable with.. What about 10
>>>>>> slots at USD 1500 each.. Total budget USD 15000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Paul, I think the proposal by Kostas supports that approach. Any
>>>>>> project leader could decide to get an additional slot/s by using their
>>>>>> project funds. The only clarification is that Summer of Code is about
>>>>>> 'code' so the documentation projects are out of scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Is everyone satisfied with the overall contents of the proposal?
>>>>>> Can we bring this to a vote by the Board and move forward?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Thanks Kostas for putting this together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Fabio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 14:39, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Hi Josh, all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  So you are suggesting that a couple of the well funded Projects
>>>>>> like AppSensor, OpenSAMM, ZAP, etc., could make a decision to 'sponsor' a
>>>>>> student under the Summer of Code program to the tune or $1500 or $3000 or
>>>>>> whatever they wanted to contribute.  And, they could ensure that those
>>>>>> funds were used on student work benefiting their project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I like that approach.  Funded projects support their own work
>>>>>> effort, and then the Foundation could support other high-value student
>>>>>> proposals that focus on new projects or under-funded projects.
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
>>>>>> OWASP Interim Executive Director
>>>>>> paul.ritchie at owasp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I think we should treat it like we do the chapters.  If a project
>>>>>>> has money in their account, then they are not eligible for Foundation funds
>>>>>>> until that money has been allocated.  I'd also agree that $30k of
>>>>>>> unbudgeted funds is a lot to spend like this considering I don't see any
>>>>>>> reason to hurry here.  It literally means robbing another budgeted project
>>>>>>> in order to account for this.  That said, I support the idea, in concept.
>>>>>>> Maybe the projects with some money can front it for their slots, the
>>>>>>> Foundation can use this as an experiment for our own program, and we can
>>>>>>> see how it goes.  Minimal risk with a high reward and we can budget for
>>>>>>> more next year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ~josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Well, I don't know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO the criteria should be based on quality of proposal and bang
>>>>>>>> for the buck for OWASP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> incubator/lab/flagship seems not so useful. E.g. if we get three
>>>>>>>> good in one category, I would not see a point selecting one from another
>>>>>>>> one just to serve all categories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers, Tobias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/15 19:49, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Not sure we need to split this in incubator/lab/flagship
>>>>>>>> categories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Tobias, this could be a option If we would like to provide a fair
>>>>>>>> chance to all project categories. Woudl you suggest other criteria for
>>>>>>>> selection?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Johanna
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  3 x 2500USD sounds reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure we need to split this in incubator/lab/flagship
>>>>>>>>> categories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best, Tobias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/15 19:39, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Consider maybe a small pilot with 3 types of projects:
>>>>>>>>> 1 Incubator, 1 LAB, 1 Flagship
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Do a pre selection of the most active on each category  and then
>>>>>>>>> select at random the participating one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  just an idea
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Total for the pilot 9,000USD (3 x 3000USD) or
>>>>>>>>> USD2500x 3 = 7500USD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Johanna
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  A suggestion. Because this is the first time OWASP is directly
>>>>>>>>>> funding this initiative, can we start with a smaller financial amount,
>>>>>>>>>> measure success, and then consider larger funding next year? I want to see
>>>>>>>>>> how we do first and would feel more comfortable with a smaller experiment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Jim
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/15 8:27 AM, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Dear board,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Following recent conversations I would like to formally submit a
>>>>>>>>>> proposal for the OWASP Summer of Code Sprint, requesting a budget of
>>>>>>>>>> $30,000.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  The details of the proposal can be found here:
>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FTC-zh__i6ft6uyZRw4rZHxOA44U6T7i33r8RkN0AXk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  I believe that such initiatives are important for our mission as
>>>>>>>>>> they combine project contributions and reaching out to students who are
>>>>>>>>>> future developers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Kostas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 listOwasp-board at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150422/d4b3df28/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list