[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Wed Mar 4 01:48:03 UTC 2015


I agree with where Josh and Johanna are coming from. We need to avoid even
the •appearance• of inappropriate actions. Having an objective staff member
running programs like this is a critical aspect to funding major programs
in a fair way.

Look, this goes for me to. Paul has been asking me a lot of pointed
questions regarding my own OWASP related travel requests and I'm •very•
glad he is doing just that.

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

On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:

Personally, I would feel much more comfortable assigning the administrative
duties to an OWASP Foundation employee in this situation.  Preferably
whoever we end up hiring for the new Projects Coordinator position (which
should hopefully happen soon).  Even with the open and transparent nature
of the process that we had last year, we still had a complaint about the
process being unfair because of Kostas running point and also having a
project involved.  This shouldn't be about fairness or trust, it should be
about creating a program where nobody can claim shenanigans because those
in charge are unbiased.  It's not fair to Kostas to be put in that
position; even if it's something he is willingly volunteering for.  If
there is even a hint of a conflict of interest, which I believe there is,
then that should be removed.  I think that we should let Kostas focus on
being a project leader and a student mentor and apply other resources to
managing the program.

~josh

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Konstantinos Papapanagiotou <
Konstantinos at owasp.org> wrote:

> I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with this. As an org admin I did
> not review any proposal or endorsed any project. My role is simply to
> ensure the fairness of the entire process and make sure everything runs
> smoothly. Also, Fabio is there as co-admin to make sure there are no
> conflicts. In fact I did everything in a really open and transparent manner
> and if you check last years slots you will realize that hackademic got less
> than it deserved.
>
> Johanna as you very well know we had other members of our community who
> tried to abuse the selection process and at the same time were making a
> huge fuss about this. I'm really surprised (and a bit offended) that you
> suggest that hackademic should be excluded and not those projects.
>
> In any case I do not intend to go on with this discussion. If the
> community or the board feels that I'm not fair with everyone or that there
> is such a COI I will step down so that hackademic can participate.
>
> Kostas
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Fabio
>>
>> I think we should agree that in this case Kostas project (hackademics)
>> cannot participate in this initiative
>> It seems to me as a conflict of interest
>>
>> Mentors cannot be the ones monitoring or reviewing the process for
>> transparency
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Johanna
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys
>>>
>>> This is a pretty well mature process at Google and would recommend
>>> following a similar approach.
>>>
>>> Here is their FAQ:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2015/help_page
>>>
>>> All suggestions below could be implemented or have been implemented
>>> already as part of OWASP GSOC.
>>>
>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC
>>>
>>> Bear in mind this initiative needs to be lined up during the students
>>> summer holidays.
>>>
>>> I’m including Kostas who has been the org admin for the last two years.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Fabio
>>>
>>> On 3 Mar 2015, at 21:30, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Have a formal selection process with ideally a committee of
>>>    leaders making the selections
>>>    - Those involved in the selection process cannot also submit
>>>    - Those involved in the selection process are also responsible for
>>>    assessing completion
>>>    - All work produced is provided under the same open source license
>>>    as the project
>>>
>>> This is very important. Neutrality and transparency who can get selected
>>> and who does not
>>>
>>> Also keep in mind there are projects that are inactive and have used
>>> Gsoc as a way to revive
>>>
>>> A criteria should be clearly established to avoid
>>> any misunderstandings and abuses
>>>
>>> I keep on remembering that getting the Gsoc slots has been an on going
>>> discussion among participating project leaders
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Johanna
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 I agree with Joshs perspective on this. I'd personally vote no if I
>>>> had to make a decision on these funds today.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> @Manicode
>>>> (808) 652-3805
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To some extent, I think this gets back to the "should OWASP pay people
>>>> to work on it's tools" debate.  In my personal opinion, I think that the
>>>> answer is "yes", provided that we:
>>>>
>>>>    - Have a pre-defined scope for the opportunity with specific
>>>>    milestones required
>>>>    - Have a pre-defined award for completing the opportunity
>>>>    - Publicly publish any and all opportunities so that anyone can
>>>>    express an interest in them
>>>>    - Have a formal selection process with ideally a committee of
>>>>    leaders making the selections
>>>>    - Those involved in the selection process cannot also submit
>>>>    - Those involved in the selection process are also responsible for
>>>>    assessing completion
>>>>    - All work produced is provided under the same open source license
>>>>    as the project
>>>>
>>>> If we have agreement on these points, then I would suggest extending
>>>> Fabio's proposal to be a much broader OWASP call for ideas (not just GSoC
>>>> submissions).  Put a two week limit on submissions and, once expired, put
>>>> all reasonable ideas someplace public.  Submit a press release stating that
>>>> we are looking for students interested in tackling these challenges and
>>>> providing the details.  As long as this is no longer GSoC, then we get to
>>>> make up our own rules, and I think that we should take a step back to
>>>> evaluate how WE would want this to work.  What goal do WE want to
>>>> accomplish with this initiative.  I'm all for allocating $30k here, but
>>>> don't just want it to be OWASP's rejected rehashing of GSoC.
>>>>
>>>> ~josh
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Fabio Cerullo <fcerullo at owasp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you probably know by now, we have not been accepted to Google
>>>>> Summer of Code this year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually, this is a major push for projects during the year as
>>>>> experienced by ZAP, OWTF, Appsensor, Hackademics, Seraphimdroid, etc. For a
>>>>> full list of ideas in 2015 please check the following URL:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC2015_Ideas
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to keep the momentum going and progress those projects, I
>>>>> would like to request an extraordinary budget allocation of 30K USD to
>>>>> cover up to 10 student slots at 3K each. Usually Google pays 5500 USD per
>>>>> student during GSOC. We will use the same structure as previous years with
>>>>> Kostas/me as org admins, the project leaders who usually participate in
>>>>> GSOC (Core team) will pick the best student submissions and then a group of
>>>>> dedicated OWASP volunteers who every year act as mentors for the students.
>>>>> We could establish a mid-term and full term evaluation where if a student
>>>>> is failed mid-term he/she will only receive half the funds (1500 USD). If
>>>>> the student is approved full term, he/she receives the full amount (3000
>>>>> USD).
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand this is a non-planned expenditure, but considering the
>>>>> importance of GSOC in the last couple of years to progress OWASP coding
>>>>> projects, I think is imperative to take some action considering the current
>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have any questions, please let us know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Fabio
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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/20150303/853493ce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list