[Owasp-leaders] Fw: Books at lulu

Pravir Chandra chandra at owasp.org
Thu Nov 19 05:46:41 EST 2009


Yeah, I agree that automated translations shouldn't be in the same category
as reviewed ones. Since Juan originally brought this omission in Assessment
Criteria 2.0 to our attention a few weeks back, the GPC hasn't had a chance
to really discuss as yet, but rest assured we'll put it on the agenda for
the next call.

So far, my preference has been to avoid rating translated docs separately
from their masters and instead, inventing a new type of unrated meta-project
(i've been calling it a "family" project) to serve as a grouping of other
projects. This would be useful for cutting the gordian knot of things like
ESAPI and things like the Spanish project, Book cover project, etc. It would
also allow us to create new "family" projects for programming language
specific groupings, audience specific groupings, etc. I'm definitely not set
on the name "family" for these projects, so other suggestions are welcomed.
Also, if there are serious objections to leaving "family" projects unrated,
we can always do something like averaging the scores of the constituent
members. I'm not sure that's really desirable, but it's an idea so I thought
I'd throw it out there.

Does anyone have further suggestions for this scheme? Objections? Any
specific examples that it doesn't work for?

p.



On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Dave Wichers <dave.wichers at owasp.org>wrote:

>  Regarding translations of release quality docs, I agree with Mike that
> they should be release quality too. I’m not so sure I buy into calling
> Google automatic translations release quality.
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [mailto:
> owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] *On Behalf Of *Boberski, Michael
> [USA]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:51 PM
> *To:* owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Owasp-leaders] Fw: Books at lulu
>
>
>
> My $0.02,
>
>
>
> A translation of a release document should be a release. Of a beta a beta.
> An alpha an alpha. This kind of thing is an impediment to promoting adoption
> to the maximum extent possible. A missed word or phrase in a translation of
> a document identified as release can be fixed in a subsequent edition w/o
> damaging the OWASP brand or the overall technical content of the document.
>
>
>
> I would go so far as to publish Google/automated translated versions of
> documents, anticipating making fixes in subseqent editions. Let's put 12
> different versions of all the different docs out there, and let's do it
> yesterday. We should be so lucky that people read them carefully enough to
> catch corrections in order to make it useful to people in their
> organization. The different docs aren't even in the game if someone in a new
> setting can't even get a sense of how one of our tools could potentially be
> of use.
>
>
>
> Related (of equal importance in my mind), tool documentation should
> correspond to the release of the tool. A release toolkit should have either
> an UNRATED install guide, or one that is release. Tools also need to be
> required to produce a minimum of documentation, including install guide,
> release notes, admin guide, and a user or programming guide depending on
> what the tool is (tool vs. API).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mike B.
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org [
> owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Juan C Calderon [
> johnccr at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:29 PM
> *To:* OWASP Leaders
> *Subject:* [Owasp-leaders] Fw: Books at lulu
>
> Hello Leo
>
> yes this is because published translations are considered Beta not release
>
> Leaders/Project Comitee, this is something I forgot to mention at the
> summit, Spanish translations are considered Beta regardless is the original
> document is release. This because there is not defined a criteria for
> translations to be considered release level.
>
> the questions is if the original document is release would a translation be
> release level as well? (personally I don't think so) but if not, then what
> would it take to get to that level?
>
> Regards,
> Juan Carlos
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> *From:* Leonardo Cavallari Militelli <leonardocavallari at gmail.com>
> *To:* Juan C Calderon <johnccr at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Wed, November 18, 2009 11:51:36 AM
> *Subject:* Books at lulu
>
> Hi Juan,
> I'm doing a clean up on OWASP books at Lulu and just notice that Testing
> Guide 3.0 in Spanish is in beta release.
> Can you tell me why that?
>
> As the ENglish version is on Release Quality, it might be a good idea to
> check what is missing to produce the equivalent in Spanish.
>
> Thanks & Best,
> Leo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20091119/191e50e1/attachment.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list