[Owasp-leaders] [Owasp-community] PLEASE READ IS NO SPAM!!!!- Vote for Flagship - OWASP Document Projects

Josh Sokol josh.sokol at owasp.org
Wed Jul 16 15:23:42 UTC 2014


I added thoughts on documentation evaluation criteria back in June as well:

http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2014-June/011888.html

I've got a couple of other things on my plate that I'm trying to finish up
(Communities 2.0 and Whistleblower Policy Update), but I am happy to lead
this initiative once those are complete.  Otherwise, if someone from the
community would like to step up and create a formal set of evaluation
criteria and open it up for community feedback, I'm all for that.  But, I
don't think it makes sense to hire people to review until the criteria for
reviewing have been finalized.

~josh


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Tom Brennan - OWASP <tomb at owasp.org> wrote:

> I will help and assemble a paid team to review the document projects as a
> 3 month sprint.
>
> We will put out a open call for reviewers on www.odesk.com take
> candidates pick 4-5 folks and do a review of all of them.  The criteria as
> you linked to is available we just need the labor.  Labor is not free but
> can be affordable + there are available funds for this purpose not being
> used in current budget.
>
> Increasing the quality is the big picture goal and clearly in the realm of
> what will be the "Project Committee" in the very near future for oversight.
> Until then if there are no objections will get to work on it over the
> weekend and if folks want to help write the scope they are welcomed to do
> so as well in a google doc or on a wiki page
>
> Tom Brennan
> 973-202-0122
>
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 9:41 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>
> until the requirements have been defined for Flagship documentation
> projects.
>
> Tom, I want to clarify that there is a criteria, created last year
> *http://owasp.blogspot.com/2013/11/owasp-project-review-criteria-and-2013.html
> <http://owasp.blogspot.com/2013/11/owasp-project-review-criteria-and-2013.html>*
>
>
> *https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AllOCxlYdf1AdGxrR29jZGRhRnVhX0FYbkxQa2ZmdlE&usp=sharing#gid=0
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AllOCxlYdf1AdGxrR29jZGRhRnVhX0FYbkxQa2ZmdlE&usp=sharing#gid=0>
> *
>
> The problem is no one is taking care or being in charge to do document
> reviews . Yes, the Technical project advisors produced a set of criteria,
> but it requires technical reviewers, and thats the issue, there is no one
> doing it or taking care of this.
>
> In multiple emails and even in the wiki page I mentioned the difficulties,
> challenges and resources necessary regarding this, but there has been no
> feedback or decision from anyone.
>
> *https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Proposal_Project_Review_QA_Approach#Approach_for_Reviewing_Document_projects
> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Proposal_Project_Review_QA_Approach#Approach_for_Reviewing_Document_projects>*
>
> As I mentioned long ago, I'm not doing reviews of documents  because they
> require a body of people with enough knowledge in the subjects, time and
> even this might include a technical editor imho.
>
> So in the meanwhile no one is taking the responsibility to do reviews of
> Documents, how are we ever going to make sure they can be defined as
> flagship?
>
> I see that list for 'flagship' documents will never get filled as long as
> no one is working on it.
>
> If people don't want surveys then what will be there instead? All I hear
> is some  members against using survey and preferring to vote blank and *but
> no feedback regarding how to solve the issue.*
>
> I just wanted to help gather information regarding the perception of
> quality on documents projects from the community and eventually use this as
> a temporary solution until one is defined. Anyways, the community vote is
> also essential in this process.
>
> I'm not taking more initiatives/efforts regarding any surveys with
> document projects.
>
>  As I said, thats not in my scope.
>
> regards
>
> Johanna
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>>  Agree with Tom and Josh on this.
>> Best regards, Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/07/14 13:20, Tom Brennan - OWASP wrote:
>>
>> Agree with Josh on this "submit a vote for no projects out of a belief
>> that all projects should remain without Flagship status until the
>> requirements have been defined for Flagship documentation projects. "
>>
>> Tom Brennan
>> 973-202-0122
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>  submit a vote for no projects out of a belief that all projects should
>> remain without Flagship status until the requirements have been defined for
>> Flagship documentation projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWASP-Leaders mailing listOWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.orghttps://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-community mailing list
>> Owasp-community at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-community
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20140716/f53e4759/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list