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

Matt Tesauro mtesauro at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 12:02:45 EST 2009


Matt's opinion - worth what you paid for it  ; )

I agree with the consensus here that a translation of a release rated X
should also have the same rating.  It only makes sense that if the
project has been reviewed and those peers said its "Stable", then as
long as the translation is good, I see no reason why the same work in a
different language wouldn't also be "Stable".  The same is true for
Alpha or Beta.

At some point we have to trust the OWASP leader who is doing the
translation and I am not worried about the quality.  As Dinis likes to
say "People don't abuse OWASP" and I agree.  If that becomes an issue
later, we can revisit this.

For automatic translations, (assuming we start doing them), I believe
they should be marked as "Alpha" no matter what the source document's
rating.  I'd also put them in the wiki, clearly mark them Alpha and
request assistance for native speakers/readers.  After a human has run
through the document, then we can evaluate if it can loose its "Alpha"
status.  I'm sort of curious about if this would inspire contributions
from the community.

To Pravir's point about project "families", this is something that
already exists in the Assessment Criteria v2 (ACv2) and I labeled it
"Research and Activities".  Basically that's a grab bag of "other"
projects that don't fit easily into the Tools or Documents buckets.  My
vision for "Research and Activities" was to cover:
     1. An umbrella project with several sub-projects. This can include
        sub-projects of either tools, documents or both.
     2. A project whose single releases consists of a mixture of tools
        and documents.
This is one the the least fleshed out portions of ACv2.  As it stands,
those were treated as unique situations under ACv2:
[snip]
Projects which have mixed release types (tools and documents) in a
single release will be evaluated by a subset of both the tool and
documentation criteria. In the case that such a project is evaluated,
the Global Projects Committee will determine which aspects of the tools
and documentation apply to that project prior to that project's Alpha
evaluation. The subset of criteria will be documented and used for that
release until it reaches a Quality release. This type of Activity and
Research is not typical and is better handled on a case-by-case basis as
opposed to trying to write an abstract enough criteria to handle all
cases.
[snip]

http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Research_and_Activities_Criteria

Hope that helps.

-  
-- Matt Tesauro
OWASP Live CD Project Lead
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Live_CD_Project
http://AppSecLive.org - Community and Download site


On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 02:46 -0800, Pravir Chandra 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



More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list