[Owasp-leaders] Proposing new guidelines to start code/tool projects

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Fri Aug 22 02:34:26 UTC 2014


Hi Kait (Gregory)

I agree with  you on this and I think that the problem has been this : * when
they submit their project they have an outline of the project and a roadmap*

If you take a look of those empty projects , their outline is way to vague,
not even a clear description of what the project is about is and there is
not a clear plan for the roadmap. So we really need to review
more careful when allowing an incubators begin. Ideally we should provide a
clear example. The 90 days deadline sounds very good to me.

The idea of a 90 day puts pressure into it. After 90 days no code, then
inactive.

regards

Johanna


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Gregory Disney <gregory.disney at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Repost from Kait, because she keeps getting kicked off the leaders list.
>
> ==========================================================================================
> I brought this up with Johanna earlier today in regards to what should be
> done with new projects.
>
> It's my opinion that requiring new projects to have source code written
> before they can become a project will alienate would be project leaders.
> For many new projects, when they submit their project they have an outline
> of the project and a roadmap. This is especially true for documentation
> projects, which may not have a draft yet at the time they apply.
>
> I propose instead that we continue to approve projects that have a flesh
> out project outline and require that they have progress on the project
> within 90 days. After 90 days, these new projects should be reviewed for
> progress. This doesn't have to be an in-depth review, more of a check in
> with the project leader to see if their repository is posted, if they have
> source code, or a draft in cases of documentation projects.
> If after 90 days, there has been no progress on the project, those project
> should be considered inactive.
>
> By making progress a requirement in the first 90 days, we can avoid the
> problem we have now, which is that several projects that enjoy active
> project status while having never produced anything for the project.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Jonathan Marcil <
> jonathan.marcil at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Oh I see, if you want to add another step in the new project adoption
>> life cycle.. well go ahead!
>>
>> Also, if there's no time limit, you'll kill that special motivation of a
>> urge to deliver something. For some people it may actually help motivate
>> them to release. Others will release anyways. Pressure can be good. It
>> can be another period than one year.. maybe 6 months I don't know.
>>
>> All that said, I hope you don't plan to move everything to whiteboard by
>> default.. As a project starter, I kind of accepted the rule of "one year
>> or the project is out of incubator" and would not like the rules to
>> change in the middle or having to adhere to another process I won't need
>> in 2 months. Good news about that is that if you apply the one year
>> timeout of the initial agreement, you'll be free of "dead" incubator
>> projects within one year anyways.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> - Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 2014-08-21 21:52, johanna curiel curiel wrote:
>> > Jonathan and leaders
>> >
>> > I would love to allow idea-projects hang for a year but what I have seen
>> > after reviewing this for almost 2 years, that the project leader looses
>> > pressure to create something in that period and many projects in the end
>> > die like this.
>> >
>> > If we allow idea-projects hang for a year, the amount of work becomes
>> > quite big with all the projects that must be reviewed and managed. This
>> > process has failed twice, with the Global Committee and the technical
>> > advisory board. Setting the bar higher challenges project leaders to
>> > really work on it and not let it hang for a year, in the meanwhile,
>> > people (potential users) of your project, visit the wiki and  get
>> > disappointed to see anything on it.
>> >
>> > The idea of the Whiteboard, can allow future project leaders to set this
>> > as an idea-project and get contributors, but the expectations are
>> > different, especially for potential users. They know that this is just
>> > an idea and the project hasn't developed yet. When you are ready to take
>> > it to the next step, then it becomes a tangible project , and once done
>> > that, then the real work begins to keep the project alive and kicking,
>> > but thats much easier to monitor than communicating through email every
>> > time to see if the project is alive and in the meanwhile the wiki page
>> > is outdated and no code has been produced. It damages OWASP reputation.
>> >
>> > We need to develop and design a 'Startup' like program where we provide
>> > training to potential project leaders how to make that idea a
>> > prototype.Just like with 'Accelerators' . Since we work globally, I
>> > think this should be available online (through courser for example) and
>> > have this programs twice a year for example.
>> >
>> > regards
>> >
>> > Johanna
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
>> > <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     > Last but not least, thank you a lot for your efforts Johanna, you
>> are
>> >     keeping the main backbone of OWASP healthy and not anyone has the
>> >     courage and toughness to do so.
>> >
>> >     +1000
>> >
>> >     More positive work and progress around projects bas been done in the
>> >     last few months than several years past. We are very lucky to have
>> >     your "extreme volunteerism", Johanna.
>> >
>> >     PS: +1 On the sandbox idea. Perhaps call it "the whiteboard" instead
>> >     of "sandbox" to denote an "IT centric idea"
>> >
>> >     Aloha,
>> >     --
>> >     Jim Manico
>> >     @Manicode
>> >     (808) 652-3805 <tel:%28808%29%20652-3805>
>> >
>> >     > On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Jonathan Marcil
>> >     <jonathan.marcil at owasp.org <mailto:jonathan.marcil at owasp.org>>
>> wrote:
>> >     >
>> >     > Last but not least, thank you a lot for your efforts Johanna, you
>> are
>> >     > keeping the main backbone of OWASP healthy and not anyone has the
>> >     > courage and toughness to do so.
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140821/6681eeff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list