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

Pravir Chandra chandra at owasp.org
Tue Nov 24 11:03:23 EST 2009


Awesome news! Thanks for the update Juan, and happy Thanksgiving!

p.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Calderon, Juan Carlos (GE, Corporate,
consultant) <juan.calderon at ge.com> wrote:

>  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* <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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091124/7dcb2c19/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list