[Owasp-board] OWASP Summer Code Sprint Proposal

Tobias tobias.gondrom at owasp.org
Wed Mar 4 15:16:32 UTC 2015


I agree with Jim. on that even just the perception of conflict of 
interest must be avoided.
Conflicts of interest are very hard to understand from the outside with 
limited transparency and information about the internal workings of a 
process. So even though I trust that all parties will do their best to 
decide objectively, a person should never be in the position of power to 
decide on his own funding.

I am confident that we can decouple the process from the actual 
selection committee and have an independent selection committee, managed 
by staff and un-biased members from the community.

Just my 2cents.

Cheers, Tobias


On 04/03/15 09:48, Jim Manico wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
>>>
>>>                 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 <mailto:Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org>
>>     https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150304/886c948b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list