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

Eoin Keary eoin.keary at owasp.org
Thu Aug 28 23:00:42 UTC 2014


+1 PoC and ref implementations are nice. Production quality, were not even near in most cases.


Eoin Keary
Owasp Global Board
+353 87 977 2988


On 27 Aug 2014, at 19:37, 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>> 
>> 
>> Email us to enforce secure link with your mail servers (domain).
>> This message may contain confidential information - you should handle it accordingly.
>> Ez a levél bizalmas információt tartalmazhat, és ekként kezelendő.
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140829/355a1371/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list