[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer of Code Sprint Proposal

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Apr 25 18:41:18 UTC 2015


Thanks for pointing this out, Jason.

Interesting to note that funding to support this program came in part came
from sponsors - not just OWASP funds.

Another note is the many months of planning that went into this (per wiki
history).

I definitely think this is good for the foundation. But I would rather see
us plan carefully and have a great process in place instead of rushing to
spend 30k+. And I definitely feel rushed to spend these funds which is my
main concern regarding funding approval.

Regards,
--
Jim Manico
@Manicode
(808) 652-3805

On Apr 25, 2015, at 4:32 AM, Jason Li <jason.li at owasp.org> wrote:

Josh,

I'm a little late to this thread, but I just wanted to point out that it is
NOT the first time OWASP would be running this type of initiative
ourselves. As an organization, we ran seasons of code for many years prior
to Google accepting our application to participate in Google Summer of Code:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Autumn_Of_Code_2006 ($34,000 budget)
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Spring_Of_Code_2007 ($117,500 budget)
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Summer_of_Code_2008 ($100,00 budget)

Obviously the organization budget and expenses have changed a lot since
then. Those events were done back when Paulo and Kate were the only paid
employees of OWASP and before chapters and projects had their own budgets.
We've obviously grown a lot since then, and the goals are different this
time around. But as an organization, we do have some history running this
type of initiative ourselves.

-Jason

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, 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 list
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/20150425/c417839d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list