[Owasp-leaders] [GPC] Fw: Remote Repositories on SourceForge

Michael Coates michael.coates at owasp.org
Thu Jan 5 14:30:38 UTC 2012


Dennis,

I hoping that Jason's email cleared up any confusion for you (copied below). This approach is a store for meta data with no impact on code repository.  Basically, everything moves forward nicely and we now have a place where people can see a concise listing of all the information about projects.  No impact to where a project stores there code, really not much of an inconvenience at all.  

I'm excited to see where this goes and happy that they went through a process to evaluate many different options.



Michael Coates
OWASP
michael.coates at owasp.org




Begin forwarded message:

> Christian,
> 
> We are using SourceForge as a mechanism to organize our project metadata and display our library of projects in a consumable fashion. The code repository functions and other features of SourceForge are *available* to project leaders, but they are not required to use SourceForge as their code repository. It is an *option* for project leaders and a choice to be made by the project leader. My understanding is that the ESAPI project decided to transition to SourceForge, as is their choice.
> 
> Regarding mailing lists, a combination of automated processes and OWASP staff largely maintain the mailing lists. Management of mailing lists is not a GPC responsibility. Nonetheless, Kate explains in the very thread you cite explains the mechanism that creates the leader's list, which explains your prior predicament.
> 
> Regarding selection of SourceForge, as has been previously mentioned, we had an open RFP for project infrastructure. We evaluated the proposals we received and chose the best candidate proposal (http://sl.owasp.org/gpcws-jun11-proceedings#h.4z9gh8ff79fg). There will always be concerns about decisions and choices made, but organizations cannot stand perpetually waiting for the fictional perfect solution that simultaneously solves everything and is amenable to 100% of the audience. Organizations do the best that they can with what the responses they receive.
> 
> -Jason

On Jan 5, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Dennis Groves wrote:

>> On Thursday, 5 January 2012 at 08:22, psiinon wrote:
>>> previously I got the impression that all of the OWASP projects would be required to migrate to SourceForge, which I think would have been a problem for some projects.
>> 
>> 
>> I have the same impression, which I think this is a very daft idea, its like requiring people to use a dead horse in whatever they do!?!  
>> 
>> This is a great way to loose people, projects and years of momentum (I have personally met several projects OWASP has lost because of this). If people are willing to contribute - OWASP needs to get out of the way and let them contribute! OWASP should be greasing the wheels, not putting the breaks on!
>> 
>> Further, all the 'cool kids' use github and the like these days - In fact, even the *bitter old men* like myself use git these days… ;-)
>> 
>> OWASP really needs to undo this damage, personally, I advise people to do whatever they are comfortable with - just as long as the contribute and grow OWASP. We need to foster and encourage adoption not put up barriers.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dennis Groves  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Global-projects-committee mailing list
> Global-projects-committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global-projects-committee



More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list