[Owasp-leaders] On Project Reboots

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Tue Apr 10 18:00:51 UTC 2012


Nobody is saying that we shouldn't stimulate those projects (of course we
should)

The question is how?

The key issue that we need to agree and move on (so that we find
solutions), is that '*Simulating those projects by paying OWASP Leaders to
work on it , is NOT an option'*
*
*
Once we accept that (and it looks like we haven't reached consensus) , I
think there are a lot of ideas and things we should do to stimulate these
projects.

That said, the energy MUST come from the projects (OWASP is an enabler)

Dinis Cruz


On 10 April 2012 18:50, Eoin <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:

> Chris,
> Not sure if your simplifying things to be honest....
>
> Can you say the Testing guide is also not important based on this logic?
>
> I certainly want the community to pick what is important but there are
> millions of developers whom are not part of the community, never heard of
> owasp and don't understand secure app dev.
>
> Shall we deny them of such resources, talent and free information because
> OWASP did not bother to focus, stimulate or drive such projects?
>
> -ek
>
>
>
>
> On 10 April 2012 18:42, Chris Schmidt <chris.schmidt at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I think that statement is fine and dandy for an organization like
>> Hibernate (which is one of your examples of this I think) - Hibernate and
>> SpringSource both have Full-Time Employees that work on their open-source
>> software for competitive full time wages. This is a totally different
>> situation. Our funds are much more limited in this scenario and I believe
>> it is much more worthwhile for the project leaders to come to the
>> organization with specific proposals about requests for funds and what they
>> intend to use them for as opposed to the organization determining that
>> these *n* projects will now be *paid* sub-par rates.
>>
>> To John's point, if the Dev Guide is truly an important project, then why
>> hasn't there been more of a demand for it and why hasn't someone just
>> picked up and gotten it done by now. We may think it is important, and I
>> agree that at one point it probably was - but if there is no energy behind
>> a project, simply throwing money at it doesn't solve the bigger problem. It
>> may slow the bleeding, it may even result in a new finished product, but
>> what is our return on that product (not purely financially speaking) -
>> especially if there is not an industry need for it any more b/c things like
>> the Cheat Sheets series have basically replaced them.
>>
>> There are really an infinite amount of reasons that throwing money at
>> projects and project leaders is generally a bad idea - I'm sure I don't
>> need to iterate all of them.
>>
>> If we are going to pay developers FT or Contractor wages to work on a
>> project, that is a completely different story, however that was not what I
>> got out of the whole thing. We want to pay the existing project teams a
>> stipend to motivate them to do the work they already signed up for to do as
>> volunteers and have neglected to do. This in essence, as I already stated,
>> is rewarding inactive project leaders and members for bad behavior.
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 11:09 AM, Jim Manico wrote:
>> >> Open source and public domain comes from the spirit and will of
>> volunteers.
>> >
>> > This is not entirely true. Some of the most successful and production
>> > quality open source projects have major financial backing.
>> >
>> > There is nothing in the "mission" of OWASP that prevents us from using
>> > funds to update core guides that help spread AppSec awareness.
>> >
>> > But I think the risk of letting more time go by were our flagship
>> > projects continue to wane, that's a big problem that is directly
>> > counter to what we should be doing.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Manico
>> > (808) 652-3805
>> >
>> > On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:30 AM, John Wilander <john.wilander at owasp.org><john.wilander at owasp.org>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Open source and public domain comes from the spirit and will of
>> volunteers.
>>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPhHECAAoJEEOkVJOBy86BZ7UH/jA+pOxElOS7YeibLIDbDXIy
>> ywnWlIHp3sOGgcmVL4pyQpNgXcoJrEj8+WEMU8bZGxrBvnGVoZYohH6FScG3FkPW
>> 5OtTCLI6ybgQQh88CWjeB9TXHvaHmtigxtWaZemJ29xLF6/ZI5E01CEby7bhQiAM
>> TTUhGOGcM3qhL5MY1kL4zwbOrQErmWywA4yF80eBe1tsmgRko9Q9UKyuFwSFLIpx
>> ElqBY8pf1/hNpeb0ZF7urzQquFCtOO1dg4RvTXxdXULjZvoAXUhzolCElFZ8IhMa
>> eZeX9IL+L2xcloOUnH+toBx2K50HD5eay3PBH9e0VBU+0U5V5bm6WcbIMIWY3dM=
>> =oRVx
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Eoin Keary
> OWASP Global Board Member (Vice Chair)
>
> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20120410/1e2f4bd4/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list