[Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Books at lulu

Leonardo Cavallari Militelli leonardocavallari at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 07:46:42 EST 2009


Still on documentation projects, I also agree that translated versions
should belong to the same category as the master document, however only
reviewed versions.

Automatic translation is a good idea, however we all know that all specific
and technical terms will be flushed away during this process, to say the
worst problem.
So, if we´ve been working to improve quality of OWASP projects, we shouldn't
assign a release status for those while not reviewed.

As Pravir said, this will be discussed soon by GPC. I think a good approach
can be to have a modus operandi for docs translation, technical review,
teams, credits, etc.

Leo


On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Pravir Chandra <chandra at owasp.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global-projects-committee mailing list
> Global-projects-committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global-projects-committee
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20091119/96995f24/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list