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

Pravir Chandra chandra at owasp.org
Fri Nov 20 17:07:09 EST 2009


Speaking of which, any idea when the Spanish translation will be complete? I
can probably turn it around into a formatted and "pretty" version fairly
quickly, just let me know.

p.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate,
consultant) <juan.calderon at ge.com> wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20091120/ef42e742/attachment.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list