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

Jerry Hoff jerry at owasp.org
Thu Aug 28 16:17:52 UTC 2014


Professional writers are straightforward to come by, we just need to allocate budget then hire a tech writer to flesh out the docs. The allocation of the money and size of the budget will be the deciding factors.

--
Jerry Hoff
jerry at owasp.com
@jerryhoff

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:02, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
>  >May I suggest that we hire a professional publisher to help us with writing process of major documents.
> 
> Jim, how do we get this moving? I think the IEEE document makes us look real bad ;-P
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jerry Hoff <jerry at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Jim,
>> 
>> I think that is absolutely reasonable - the idea would be a software foundation would agree to support and maintain the library, but having OWASP missionaries / thought leaders involved in the evolution of the security control libraries would be ideal.  
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Jerry Hoff
>> @jerryhoff
>> jerry at owasp.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Quite a reasonable opinion, Jerry. And I think it's fair to somehow collaborate with a real software foundation for these software control projects. But I'd still like OWASP involvement somehow....
>>> 
>>> Perhaps a partnership were we use Apache's[1] process and infrastructure, but have an OWASP volunteer manage it? 
>>> 
>>> [1] Or some other software foundation....
>>> 
>>> Aloha,
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 8/27/14, 12:23 PM, Jerry Hoff wrote:
>>>> Agree with Johanna - ideally successful poc security controls "graduate" to apache, Mozilla or some other group to maintain production quality projects. My main concern are SLAs and long-term support. 
>>>> 
>>>> These controls will be in production for years and years and years - security controls will always need continual support and updates. Since OWASP can't legitimately make that support commitment at this time, I think we should encourage foundations with paid, full time developers and a tested software development infrastructure would be the best place for these projects to live.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, merely my opinion...
>>>> 
>>>> Jerry
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jerry Hoff
>>>> jerry at owasp.com
>>>> @jerryhoff
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 22:16, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> >There are several more of these mini-control projects popping up (safe File IO, advanced logging, etc). And I think it's a good idea to keep supporting them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim, I believe we should definitely work on security libraries, I just don't know if OWASP as an organization should  provide any from of guarantee to users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >2) Both built and maintained by PhD level computer programmers.
>>>>>  Ph.D doesnt says much to me, an example , Long-Term Capital Management was full with Ph.Ds that almost caused the biggest Stock market crash..Financial Times described it as "the fund that thought it was too smart to fail"
>>>>> 
>>>>> So being that said,  I don't think we questioned the intelligence of the people working in these libraries, but I questioned who's responsibility is , or since these are Open Source project, OWASP should not feel this responsibility at all
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:08 PM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> > good appsec ideas fail due to project management issues
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well Timur, not every project leader will become a good project manager. Only time will tell. An idea is not a project and the person responsible to bring that idea to a project is the leader.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The best example of this is Facebook. The Winkelvoss brothers also had a great idea but they                     could not executed . Execution is the most important thing when working on a project. If you just hang with the idea an no execution plans then is destined to fail.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:57 PM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Personally i believe we are not a software foundation, we don't have professional, full time developers, we don't have the infrastructure, so at this time I'm not a big fan of advertising production quality / production ready security controls
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jerry, you have nailed with your comment. We just don't have the capacity to have test Quality as suggested by Timur and honestly I dont even know if this should be our mission. Timur I appreciate your comments, just keep in mind that OWASP does not have a staff nor a team of volunteers to do this. We are working with realistic down to earth resources and if a                               project has had not had a single release that is more than enough criteria to discard it as inactive.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Security controls to be used in a production environment - not so cool (in my opinion). 
>>>>>>> Agree, level of responsibility is quite high for these kind of projects
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jerry Hoff <jerry at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm probably the only one, but I really don't think owasp should be building and promoting security controls and advising them to be used in production.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Poc security controls are cool, testing tools are super cool, and learning tools are super cool - but security controls to be used in a production environment - not so cool (in my opinion). 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What is our SLA if security or other bugs are found? What is our track record on actively maintaining security libraries over time? Security controls may need support over the life of an app, which could be 10 years+ 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Personally i believe we are not a software foundation, we don't have professional, full time developers, we don't have the infrastructure, so at this time I'm not a big fan of advertising production quality / production ready security controls.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jerry
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jerry Hoff
>>>>>>>> jerry at owasp.com
>>>>>>>> @jerryhoff
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 21:11, "Timur 'x' Khrotko (owasp)" <timur at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Consider approaching the project quality problem from a different angle. Any prominent OWASP project should also be degraded when its active support is abandoned, or its professional usefulness gets significantly lowered. We can't measure this problem simply by days of inactivity, number of edits or other quantitative properties. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My suggestion (and probably it is also NIH)) would be to approach both new and old projects with a common criteria of                                                   quality.
>>>>>>>>> I don't mind how long it would take for                                                   a new project to achieve "selected" status, meaning that OWASP identifies with it professionally. 
>>>>>>>>> I don't mind how long a new project tries to boot up, if it succeeds once then hurray, but with time its chances to become a noticeable project just get lower by the logic of things. 
>>>>>>>>> I also suggest that if there is a good idea with bad management, then someone at OWASP,                                                   among us or Foundation, has to recognize it and not let the idea/project die. So it is not only the responsibility of the project leaders to let good projects mature. Moreover, I suggest it is our own                                                   failure if some really good appsec ideas fail due to project management issues,                                                   while mediocre ideas                                                   flourish due to ambitious leaders. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So lets establish quality categories/statuses for OWASP projects (just as illustration):
>>>>>>>>> 1. Flagship -- 10 per a year, not only certified quality but heavily promoted, quality is certified by non-OWASP specialists as well
>>>>>>>>> 2. Selected -- the quality is certified by project review teams (there is a new organizational facility for it) and renown OWASP specialists
>>>>>>>>> 3. Incubator -- the idea is supported/reviewed by two OWASP specialists/mentors, active
>>>>>>>>> 4. Everything else -- new ones, not yet recognized startups, and old ones, even ex-flagships, that lost active support or                                                   got obsolete for other reasons.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It also should count if a project, its page on owasp wiki or github gets a lot of hits, or its documents or binaries are downloaded frequently, or there is media buzz about it, a project was invited to conferences, etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The system of days and milestones is good, it can motivate                                                   project leaders/members to work. So we may establish the notion of track, a project being on track. There can be rules of game for new projects to be on track, and some rewards for it. For example a new project which fulfills the startup track requirements receives mentors from OWASP, and they are obliged to give it a few hours of support and write a review. etc. etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards:
>>>>>>>>> timur
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes this is a very important system and during the reviews we check if projects have a issue tracking system.  This is par tof the health criteria
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Dinis Cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This is a good model and I think the balance is right (between allowing innovation and pushing for quality)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> From a management/tracking point of view we could also push for the use of issue tracking systems (like GitHub issues, bugzilla, jira) to document/track activities on that project (ie even a project with no code should have a healthy number of issues opened/closed)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Aug 2014 18:49, "johanna curiel curiel" <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leaders,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> After hearing your concerns and some ideas from Kait-Disney                                                           and the project task force members, I'm proposing the following , which                                                           hopefully will help us reach better guidelines and less empty projects
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We will allow Incubator projects a 1 year deadline BUT with the following conditions:
>>>>>>>>>>>> They will need a clear deadline proposal roadmap for the next 90 days
>>>>>>>>>>>> We will provide an example on the wiki template of what we expect to see
>>>>>>>>>>>> We will provide a 'Start up kit'                                                           cheat sheet                                                           with all the goodies(how to get money for project, participate in Google Summer of code program, Winter of Code program, Wiki template, Project summit presentations,Github repository etc)
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they do not present a clear roadmap with deadlines, the project will not be accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>> They need to have a repository even if empty, because this will allow us to automate the monitoring of their progress
>>>>>>>>>>>> The wiki page must be COMPLETE. No empty descriptions or half info there. This will be not accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We will create a webbot to track all wiki project pages based on the latest updates and based on that we will create reminders every 90 days about the activity to ALL project leaders (not just incubators).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> General rules for all projects:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Project leaders will receive 1 reminder if the project hasn't been                                                           updated at all in 90 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Project leaders will receive 1 warnings  if no commit or wiki update has been done in 80 days or if they dont feedback with us about the situation of their project
>>>>>>>>>>>> The third one will be final and the project will be set in the inactive list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember you can always revive the project but you will need a roadmap in order to do this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Johanna
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, johanna curiel curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim and leaders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of the whiteboard is that no one needs to maintain this ;-). Is just a whiteboard with idea-projects hanging there in order for people to join and find contributors to pull off their project. What I'm trying to do                                                           is be realistic about the maintenance of                                                           project inventory and how OWASP looks to the outsiders. Empty projects                                                           looks really bad. Dont expect potential users to go read your                                                           roadmap and comeback when you say you are ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the 90 day issue is, that sometimes an idea takes time to develop, find contributors and the opportunity to work on it.Therefore future project leaders should made use of programs such                                                           as Google Summer of Code. Some of                                                           the best ideas I have seen have                                                           flourished during this program. If you want this into production, project leaders can place their ideas in the Gsoc idea page (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/GSoC2014_Ideas) jump the wagon to get students, apply to develop the 'idea'. OWTF, ZAP, PHPSEC, WEBGOATPHP have made enormous progress during this program, and when we did the call, only 12 projects applied!! So where are the active project leaders even when they had a chance like this to get a student paid for 3 months to work on their projects including 500 dollars for their project per student ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >In the past, many project got approved that probably should not have been, but I'm trying to ensure that fully formed project ideas are the ones that make it through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe this will definitely help put a minimum entry level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I  would like to find a middle ground to have a realistic review process                                                           based on our capacity to review projects,allow ideas to develop but also, have better quality for potential users of OWASP projects.I repeat , empty project pages might have been the norm but this really looks bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johanna
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 PM, johanna curiel                                                           curiel <johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> ...
>> 
>> [Message clipped]  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140828/78e535b1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list