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

Helen Gao owasp.li at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 12:32:59 EST 2009


I also agree that all translations should have the same qualities, and a
person should do the translation instead of a machine.  Is there a priority
list of what documents should be translated first?

Helen Gao

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Matt Tesauro <mtesauro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>



-- 
Helen Gao
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20091119/be7c2e62/attachment.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list