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

Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate, consultant) juan.calderon at ge.com
Mon Nov 23 09:30:37 EST 2009


Yes, we are like 80% complete of the initial translation, once complete,
it will pass throw a internal editing before I send it to you, since
Thanks giving is approaching we might be delayed a little, but, I expect
to have the text ready by second week of December.
 
Regards,
Juan C Calderon, CSSLP 
Research Leader  (Softtek Contractor) 
D *879-7858 
T +52 (449) 910-7858 
E juan.calderon at ge.com <mailto:juan.calderon at ge.com>  
Softtek GDC Aguascalientes 
 

________________________________

From: owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org
[mailto:owasp-leaders-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Pravir
Chandra
Sent: Viernes, 20 de Noviembre de 2009 04:07 p.m.
To: owasp-leaders at lists.owasp.org
Subject: Re: [Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Books at lulu


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/20091123/758c9e35/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list