[Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Books at lulu
Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate, consultant)
juan.calderon at ge.com
Fri Nov 20 16:56:51 EST 2009
The only missing major document project missing is OpenSAMM. Top 10, all
the guides, FAQ, legal, etc all are translated already.
That is why we are now turning to make the documents visible to the
community and we have in our scope some conferences/days for Latin
America and Spain.
Juan C Calderon
From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
[mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Helen Gao
Sent: Jueves, 19 de Noviembre de 2009 11:33 a.m.
To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Books at lulu
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?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Matt Tesauro <mtesauro at gmail.com>
Matt's opinion - worth what you paid for it ; )
I agree with the consensus here that a translation of a release
should also have the same rating. It only makes sense that if
project has been reviewed and those peers said its "Stable",
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
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
say "People don't abuse OWASP" and I agree. If that becomes an
later, we can revisit this.
For automatic translations, (assuming we start doing them), I
they should be marked as "Alpha" no matter what the source
rating. I'd also put them in the wiki, clearly mark them Alpha
request assistance for native speakers/readers. After a human
through the document, then we can evaluate if it can loose its
status. I'm sort of curious about if this would inspire
from the community.
To Pravir's point about project "families", this is something
already exists in the Assessment Criteria v2 (ACv2) and I
"Research and Activities". Basically that's a grab bag of
projects that don't fit easily into the Tools or Documents
vision for "Research and Activities" was to cover:
1. An umbrella project with several sub-projects. This can
sub-projects of either tools, documents or both.
2. A project whose single releases consists of a mixture of
This is one the the least fleshed out portions of ACv2. As it
those were treated as unique situations under ACv2:
Projects which have mixed release types (tools and documents) in
single release will be evaluated by a subset of both the tool
documentation criteria. In the case that such a project is
the Global Projects Committee will determine which aspects of
and documentation apply to that project prior to that project's
evaluation. The subset of criteria will be documented and used
release until it reaches a Quality release. This type of
Research is not typical and is better handled on a case-by-case
opposed to trying to write an abstract enough criteria to handle
Hope that helps.
-- Matt Tesauro
OWASP Live CD Project Lead
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
> category as reviewed ones. Since Juan originally brought this
> in Assessment Criteria 2.0 to our attention a few weeks back,
> hasn't had a chance to really discuss as yet, but rest assured
> 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
> unrated meta-project (i've been calling it a "family" project)
> serve as a grouping of other projects. This would be useful
> cutting the gordian knot of things like ESAPI and things like
> Spanish project, Book cover project, etc. It would also allow
> 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
> projects unrated, we can always do something like averaging
> of the constituent members. I'm not sure that's really
> it's an idea so I thought I'd throw it out there.
> Does anyone have further suggestions for this scheme?
> specific examples that it doesn't work for?
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Dave Wichers
<dave.wichers at owasp.org>
> Regarding translations of release quality docs, I
> Mike that they should be release quality too. I'm not
> I buy into calling Google automatic translations
> From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On
> 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
> impediment to promoting adoption to the maximum extent
> possible. A missed word or phrase in a translation of
> document identified as release can be fixed in a
> edition w/o damaging the OWASP brand or the overall
> content of the document.
> I would go so far as to publish Google/automated
> versions of documents, anticipating making fixes in
> editions. Let's put 12 different versions of all the
> docs out there, and let's do it yesterday. We should
> lucky that people read them carefully enough to catch
> corrections in order to make it useful to people in
> organization. The different docs aren't even in the
> someone in a new setting can't even get a sense of how
> our tools could potentially be of use.
> Related (of equal importance in my mind), tool
> should correspond to the release of the tool. A
> toolkit should have either an UNRATED install guide,
> that is release. Tools also need to be required to
> minimum of documentation, including install guide,
> notes, admin guide, and a user or programming guide
> on what the tool is (tool vs. API).
> Mike B.
> From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
> [owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of
> 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
> not release
> Leaders/Project Comitee, this is something I forgot to
> at the summit, Spanish translations are considered
> regardless is the original document is release. This
> there is not defined a criteria for translations to be
> considered release level.
> the questions is if the original document is release
> translation be release level as well? (personally I
> think so) but if not, then what would it take to get
> 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
> 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
> good idea to check what is missing to produce the
> in Spanish.
> Thanks & Best,
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> Global-projects-committee mailing list
> Global-projects-committee at lists.owasp.org
OWASP-Leaders mailing list
OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders