[Owasp-leaders] (We need project management) Re: On Project Reboots

Dinis Cruz dinis.cruz at owasp.org
Tue Apr 10 18:16:42 UTC 2012


What we need is Project Management (the type Paulo was doing).

In fact, we don't need 1, we need 4 or 5 project managers....

But I will settle for one in the short term,

There is a HUGE amount of work that needs to be done by the OWASP
Operational machine, and THAT is where we (OWASP) needs to be putting our
resources (i.e. creating the  'OWASP Platform') .

*At the moment we (OWASP) can't even accept and guide projects that want to
become OWASP projects!!!* And let's not forget the 'huge' (i.e. none)
support we give our current projects leaders (Hey !..I'm one of those OWASP
Leaders that feels quite abandoned at a conner of the OWASP Project's
landscape...)

In fact, the other two tragedies (and losses for owasp) are when regular
OWASP contributors and members of our community:

   - choose NOT to host their projects at OWASP, because they see no value
   in doing that!
   - choose NOT to join an OWASP projects and contribute, because they
   don't know how, there is nobody on the other side, or the project is a mess
   and not easy to see where to start!

And being harsh on us (since we need to), why should they move their
project to OWASP or Contribute? It's too much hard work, there are two many
politics, emails don't get answered, etc...

We (i.e. OWASP) treat our project leader as dirt, we don't know who they
are, we don't give them any support, we might even (if some OWASP
conference organizers have their way) ask them to pay an entrance fee at
our conferences (so that they (the project leaders) become a profit center).

This needs to change!!!

*Our leaders* (projects, chapters, conferences, etc...) *are our most
valuable asset, and we (OWASP) need to hire the resources *(i.e. project
manager) *required to deal with them in the most professional, cordial,
quick and focused way* (which is what Paulo was doing (and Kate, Sarah,
Allison , Kelly do every day))

Dinis Cruz

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-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120410/65a1a72d/attachment.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list