[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.
 
Regards,
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?

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/20091120/ccedfd1d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list