[Owasp-board] [Governance] Stepping down from Project Reviews

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Thu Sep 3 01:10:37 UTC 2015


>Is there anything else you are concerned with while we are on the topic of
ethics and project review?

@JIM
No but I want to clarify that you were *not* involved in the Review
process. You were on the mailing list as Fabio and other members and
provided some comments sporadically but *none* of these members, including
you,  were ever involved in the decisions on how to carry that process.

I think that was the best because you are a project leader of multiple
projects.Conflict of interest here is high for any one with that many
projects in their list.

What I hope to be your involvement with this process: zero.

Thats why now I want to do my projects and have nothing to do at all with
that process. Avoid conflict of interest at all cost.

Finally I'm free to dedicate my time to the projects I want.

Cheers

Johanna

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Johanna,
>
> This is a *very* serious manner. Manipulating reviews of projects I manage
> would be grounds to have me dismissed from the board. If you are seriously
> concerned that my involvement would lead ethical problems of that nature,
> then I encourage you to talk to other board members and escalate this
> issue. Corruption of that nature is very serious and would be a breach of
> my fiduciary duty to the OWASP Foundation.
>
> My main concern (and my sole reason for involvement) is that OWASP
> presents its catalog of projects in a fair way. In the past, we held up
> projects as "Flagship" that had very serious quality issues. I do not feel
> that is the case any more.
>
> Is there anything else you are concerned with while we are on the topic of
> ethics and project review?
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
> On 9/2/15 10:17 AM, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>
> As long as your role is clear in this process, including no influence in
> who reviews your projects😜
>
> cheers
>
> Johanna
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Johanna,
>>
>> Transparency wins here. :) Claudia is leading this process and asked me
>> to help. I am super happy to do so. Everyone is invited; the invite is on
>> the OWASP global calendar. The discussions will all continue on public on
>> the project list. When you were lead you asked me questions and asked me
>> for feedback on many occasions - I'd like to offer that same help to
>> Claudia since I've been around OWASP projects for many years.
>>
>> The line I draw is that while I am happy to help comment on the review
>> process, I do not actually do any reviews because I am a project leader of
>> several projects.
>>
>> Does that line seem reasonable, Johanna?
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> Global Board Member
>> OWASP Foundationhttps://www.owasp.org
>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
>>
>>
>> On 9/2/15 10:03 AM, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Improvements are always possible.
>>
>> You are a member of the board and are leading many projects.
>>
>> Conflict of interest is at high stake in this position. That is a
>> ticklish zone.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Johanna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Jim Manico < <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>> jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> > I hope you understand that we did try many things for automation.
>>>
>>> Of course! Life is an evolution. We're going to keep working on it! :)
>>>
>>> > In Openduck all projects are registered and have a 'review this
>>> project' form where you can provide a start and comments. We tried that
>>> approach.We made google forms, we made google sheets, we built simple
>>>  criteria.
>>>
>>> This is all great, I'm a big fan of openduck. We're likely going to keep
>>> using it. And we will also put some fresh eyes on it to see if we can
>>> improve.
>>>
>>> > A JIRA donated with the help of Norman Yuen to create tasks and follow
>>> ups, Jonathan Johnson who setup a server with automated builds, the SWAMP
>>> to built projects ...We did try automation and a lot.
>>>
>>> Great stuff! :)
>>>
>>> > Before you go and attempt a new thing lets share experience and not
>>> repeat  same approaches.
>>>
>>> Johanna, don't worry we're all professionals. Good folks will be looking
>>> at this. We certainly do not want to re-do things that do not need to be
>>> re-done.
>>>
>>> > I hope you understand that after spending 2 years in reviews the main
>>> problem in my opinion based on my experience, is getting the right people
>>> to spend time to review.
>>>
>>> I understand that issue. I hope to find a more streamlined way to
>>> on-board reviewers for one or two reviews. I have a knack for getting folks
>>> involved. :) We're on it.
>>>
>>> > Is just not simple.
>>>
>>> Hahaha! Nothing is simple at OWASP, I agree!
>>>
>>> > Open source security projects are not simple to test or use *this
>>> part cannot be automated*. If you are not a developer with some
>>> security background  you cannot even test more than half of them. Every
>>> project has there way to build and install.
>>>
>>> Well said, I agree.
>>>
>>> > The automation is already there for handling the review once is done.
>>>
>>> I hear you. We've set a meeting to review everything in place and posted
>>> that to the project review list. There might be some things we can improve,
>>> maybe not.
>>>
>>> > We must create incentives for people to go and review. People that
>>> have the knowledge capable of reviewing. Example : If you are not a
>>> (Java)developer how can you test and review CRSFGuard, Dependency,
>>> Appsensor? HTML sanitiser?  If you are not a .NET developer how can you use
>>> webgoat.NET or O2 project?
>>>
>>> I agree, that is something that we plan to discuss.
>>>
>>> >  I hope you get my point.
>>>
>>> Completely. As OWASP volunteers step away from important initiatives,
>>> that is ok! That is part of the flow of OWASP. But as some step away,
>>> others will step in and take over and try to continue that work. I hope you
>>> are ok with that and you get my points here that we are going to try to
>>> make improvements where we can and take this seriously!
>>>
>>> And Johanna, again, you did amazing work. There are a few areas I think
>>> can be improved, but I was always hesitant to dive into project review that
>>> much because I did not want to be a board member who was interfering with
>>> your work.
>>>
>>> I respect that fact that you want to step away. There are tons of other
>>> things to do at OWASP that would make your happier. I can tell by your
>>> email the last month or two that you are unhappy with OWASP and that
>>> certainly effects me. I take everything regarding OWASP very personally,
>>> especially from super active volunteers like yourself.
>>>
>>> So when you say, I plan to step away this time, I think you really mean
>>> it. Since I'm the board liaison for projects, I'm going to step in and help
>>> Claudia keep this ship sailing. The only thing that is constant is change
>>> and the way reviews are done will certainly change in some ways as a
>>> different crew take over. I hope that is ok with you. It's just the natural
>>> progression of things and no disrespect is meant.
>>>
>>> Aloha,
>>> Jim Manico
>>>
>>>
>>> And yes I do appreciated all the support you have personally given me
>>> and the Curacao community. It has been a great OWASP push from you for
>>> caribbean region .
>>>
>>> Cheers and Aloha
>>>
>>> Johanna
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jim Manico < <jim.manico at owasp.org>
>>> jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Johanna,
>>>>
>>>> I want you to know that your work is going to continue. We're looking
>>>> to automate more of the review process, we going to onboard new reviewers
>>>> carefully and also take a second look at the processes in place. I hope
>>>> this is a good thing in your mind. I personally think it's a very important
>>>> part of the foundation and I've thanked you more times than I can count.
>>>>
>>>> I even flew to your home island to give you your WASPY award in person.
>>>> Don you know why I did that? No it was not for vacation, I live on a
>>>> vacation island already. ;) I flew to Curacao because I believe in what you
>>>> are doing and wanted to thank you in person.
>>>>
>>>> Project reviews and projects in general are very important to the
>>>> foundation and I plan to assist Claudia and staff as they see fit to keep
>>>> the review party going.
>>>>
>>>> I would not be able to even say that if it were not for the massive
>>>> efforts from you over the past few years. Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Aloha,
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Manico
>>>> Global Board Member
>>>> OWASP Foundation
>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/>https://www.owasp.org
>>>> Join me at AppSecUSA <http://appsecusa.org/> 2015!
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Josh Sokol < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Johanna,
>>>>
>>>> You have both my attention and my support with this initiative and I
>>>> agree that it's, at least at this point in time, a far better use of our
>>>> time than in trying to wrangle with project reviews and whatnot.  You did a
>>>> fantastic job with those for a very long time and with little recognition
>>>> for it, though I do think you won a WASPY for it, didn't you?  At least
>>>> that's something.  In any case, let's figure out how to build those stairs
>>>> to reach those bananas.  If it requires changing some policies to make
>>>> funds more accessible, then I can definitely help to push those changes.
>>>> What policies currently stand in your way (ie. what is the rationale for
>>>> being told "no")?  What new policies would be reasonable.  What is a
>>>> reasonable approach to making sure that limited funds are spent on the
>>>> things that matter most and in alignment with the OWASP mission?
>>>>
>>>> ~josh
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:05 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>>> <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >I certainly cannot speak for all Projects, but every time I tried to
>>>>> get the things I needed for a project, I got either a deny or a big
>>>>> silence. so the first thing needed is, if there is money available, more
>>>>> communication and an easy way to get to it[....] In summary, my
>>>>> experience in getting money or support for OWASP projects is bad. IMHO,
>>>>> this is why so many projects die.
>>>>> [...]And lastly, I did not compare Chapters and Projects. I did
>>>>> compare the treatment that they get from OWASP.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not the only one with the same issues. I have the same
>>>>> experience too and as also many others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's accept that we have a problem and no, I don't blame the Board
>>>>> for that, but I'm asking your attention and we have to admit that we need
>>>>> to work on this. And the person asking your attention is a volunteer who
>>>>> has dedicated her time the last 3 years trying to improve a system and
>>>>> contributing in multiple activities, I think I deserve a small
>>>>> acknowledgement for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is part of the evolution OWASP is having from small to bigger
>>>>> organisation. A natural process. From US to Global.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean with a good platform in place is more than money in the
>>>>> community fund.
>>>>>
>>>>> That money  feels like a banana hanging too high to reach and no
>>>>> stairs to reach it for project leaders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Platform means communication, managing resources , support and much
>>>>> more. And money helps but a good plan is necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> It means having the stair (the platform) to make available those
>>>>> funds, so they become available.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I know that the problem is we have not work on creating the
>>>>> 'stair'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is where I want to dedicate my efforts so I will submit to form a
>>>>> committee to create the stair for better development of OWASP projects. I
>>>>> care about them, I use them I want to see fair opportunities for everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Lucas Ferreira <
>>>>> <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>lucas.ferreira at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly cannot speak for all Projects, but every time I tried to
>>>>>> get the things I needed for a project, I got either a deny or a big
>>>>>> silence. so the first thing needed is, if there is money available, more
>>>>>> communication and an easy way to get to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will put here my experience. Others can say if they face similar
>>>>>> issues or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, as part of the
>>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Brasil_Manifesto>
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Brasil_Manifesto, I tried to
>>>>>> get money to pay for a professional public relations person/company to help
>>>>>> us promote the manifesto to the Brazilian congress. I learnt the hard way
>>>>>> (from organizing AppSec conferences) that a good PR person can make a real
>>>>>> difference. At the time, I asked for USD 2600 to pay the PR but could not
>>>>>> get the money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, as part of
>>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_File_Hash_Repository>
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_File_Hash_Repository, I needed
>>>>>> a server to use to deploy the initial code and help collecting data. I also
>>>>>> needed a DNS entry. I ended up paying for the VM myself and used my own
>>>>>> private domain for the DNS because I could not get it from OWASP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lastly, as part of
>>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Portuguese_Language_Project>
>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Portuguese_Language_Project,
>>>>>> we tried to get money to hire translators and professional writers to work
>>>>>> with the more tech oriented volunteers with no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary, my experience in getting money or support for OWASP
>>>>>> projects is bad. IMHO, this is why so many projects die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just to be sure, unlike Johanna, I think money is a big issue as
>>>>>> it could be used to remove some of the load from volunteers. An example is
>>>>>> the translation projects: we could leverage the knowledge of our network of
>>>>>> volunteers, without requiring them to do all the work, by relying on
>>>>>> professional services. So, the issue is to have money to buy the services
>>>>>> needed by the projects, from VMs to professional services.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And lastly, I did not compare Chapters and Projects. I did compare
>>>>>> the treatment that they get from OWASP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:06 PM Josh Sokol < <josh.sokol at owasp.org>
>>>>>> josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe Johanna said "It's not about money".  Every time I hear
>>>>>>> someone say that it is, I cringe a little because I know that we allocated
>>>>>>> $50,000 in Community Engagement Funding this year to projects alone and
>>>>>>> have $15,650 of that remaining (
>>>>>>> <https://owasp.org/index.php/Community_Engagement_-_Payments>
>>>>>>> https://owasp.org/index.php/Community_Engagement_-_Payments).  I
>>>>>>> also know that if there's a need that goes beyond what is budgeted, we have
>>>>>>> ways to make that happen outside of this channel.  For example, when Dinis
>>>>>>> asked for $100,000 for a Project Summit, we said "Give us a plan and we'll
>>>>>>> discuss."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also cringe when I hear people compare the Projects to the
>>>>>>> Chapters or vice versa.  They are both unique and important to OWASP.  Both
>>>>>>> have needs that we need to satisfy.  Chapters have historically been more
>>>>>>> successful in fundraising because of the large volume of people involved
>>>>>>> with them, but that doesn't make them better or worse.  Just different.
>>>>>>> Let's be honest, the Chapter model of fundraising doesn't really work for
>>>>>>> Projects.  That's ok...we just need to find other ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, let's assume that money is not an issue.  What are the needs
>>>>>>> that our Projects have that OWASP is not currently fulfilling.  I don't
>>>>>>> claim to be an expert on Projects.  I don't routinely work with them and
>>>>>>> the one project that I tried to start at OWASP died a very quick death.  It
>>>>>>> was an issue with time and volunteerism, though, and had nothing to do with
>>>>>>> the OWASP platform.  I understand and agree that it's not about things you
>>>>>>> can get for free like GitHub or wiki pages.  So, what is it?  What do you
>>>>>>> need?  We have an in-house graphic designer.  We have companies that we
>>>>>>> work with for publishing.  We hired a full-time person to help with
>>>>>>> projects.  If there are needs that aren't being met here, then what are
>>>>>>> they?  What can OWASP do to make Projects more successful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Lucas Ferreira <
>>>>>>> <lucas.ferreira at owasp.org>lucas.ferreira at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Johanna,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is very sad that you are stepping down, but you nailed it when
>>>>>>>> you said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I hope that in the future there is a clear perspective how to
>>>>>>>> help projects develop better. So far I have not seen major initiatives
>>>>>>>> directed on improving a platform. A platform is not a wiki page, not a
>>>>>>>> github account, these things are already free without OWASP support."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a long time already, I have the same feeling that OWASP is
>>>>>>>> always discussing about chapters and their bank accounts and never about
>>>>>>>> projects. I just hope one day OWASP will be able to see that projects are
>>>>>>>> what makes OWASP known and respected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have talked to a few leaders of open-source projects about
>>>>>>>> bringing their projects to OWASP and, in the end, the feeling is that all
>>>>>>>> they would get is the ability to benefit from the OWASP "brand". We should
>>>>>>>> offer project leaders more than the opportunity to beg chapters for money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards and good luck,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lucas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM johanna curiel curiel <
>>>>>>>> <johanna.curiel at owasp.org>johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Members of the board ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have decided to step down from the project reviews activities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have been doing continues reviews the last 2 years, especially
>>>>>>>>> the last year I was quite involved in a major clean up in the project
>>>>>>>>> inventory, together with other members that participated in and on/off
>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That does not mean I'll step down from every activity I have been
>>>>>>>>> working on the last years at OWASP. Indeed, now I'll focus my attention in
>>>>>>>>> those activities that I feel have provided me with higher level of reward
>>>>>>>>> and a grateful feeling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately,  I cannot say the same for reviewing projects. The
>>>>>>>>> greatest reward I had from that activity is what I learned from many
>>>>>>>>> project for the last 2 years, not just looking, but download , testing and
>>>>>>>>> using them and volunteering on their activities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  It is a ticklish activity that have provided me very little
>>>>>>>>> satisfaction but disappointment. Never seems to be enough even when people
>>>>>>>>> have little idea how much time is needed to use an open source project ,
>>>>>>>>> let alone understand it. I'm a volunteer , not an OWASP employee. Lets
>>>>>>>>> clarify that for people that might read this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Claudia  , as her predecessor, Kait-Disney did, can surely
>>>>>>>>> help maintain inactive/active projects monitoring. Another ticklish
>>>>>>>>> activity that we hear many complains regarding inactive projects wanted to
>>>>>>>>> keep alive. Political driven necessities to have wiki pages of empty
>>>>>>>>> projects, thats what we finished and hope you can continue for the sake of
>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual situation is that Project leaders are definitely on
>>>>>>>>> their own, and they should understand that: when it comes to having a
>>>>>>>>> platform at OWASP for developing projects, they have very little support on
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not about money, is about a platform, a process and a way to
>>>>>>>>> be able to make a project a reality no matter if you are in India,
>>>>>>>>> Pakistan, or Africa. The inequality between these worlds is very obvious
>>>>>>>>> when we look at  projects in US or EU compare to 'developing countries'.
>>>>>>>>> Big security companies are not behind these leaders  to support them with
>>>>>>>>> time or resources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hope that in the future there is a clear perspective how to help
>>>>>>>>> projects develop better. So far I have not seen major initiatives directed
>>>>>>>>> on improving a platform. A platform is not a wiki page, not a github
>>>>>>>>> account, these things are already free without OWASP support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think people hoping to secure their web applications using OWASP
>>>>>>>>> tools, can have better ways for doing it if more energy is directed towards
>>>>>>>>> supporting a better structure for developing OWASP projects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is where my energy will be from now on. Hopefully with the
>>>>>>>>> right support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Johanna
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>>>>>>> <Governance at lists.owasp.org>Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>>>>>> <Governance at lists.owasp.org>Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>> <Governance at lists.owasp.org>Governance at lists.owasp.org
>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Global Board Member
>>> OWASP Foundationhttps://www.owasp.org
>>> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jim Manico
> Global Board Member
> OWASP Foundationhttps://www.owasp.org
> Join me at AppSecUSA 2015!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/attachments/20150902/2c108d41/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Owasp-board mailing list