[Owasp-leaders] [Owasp_project_leader_list] OWASP Project Manager Report: March 28, 2014
jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Mar 29 10:54:05 UTC 2014
Oh and by the way, here is the form you send me to send out to the
Dependency Check community for evaluation.
It's called the "Project Usability and Value" assessment, yet it does
not do what it says it does.
The "value" of evaluation is very subjective and is handled when
projects are first accepted (something you do really really well). If
the idea is not valuable, it should never be a OWASP project in the
first place. When we approach the community like you asked me to
yesterday for Dependency Check (ie: you are asking me to be part of the
process and I, as usual, said yes) I blasted social media and the
projects with this evaluation critiera per your request. The amount of
negative feedback I got was significant because the form *does not do
what is says it does*.
And again, I find this to be one of the most important parts of project
management duties at OWASP.
I hope these items help you understand why we need to fix this
PS: CATEGORIZING projects with OpenSAMM is a great idea. EVALUATING
their quality with it is not.
> I am not on the board of technical directors because it is a deep
> conflict of interest since I manage so many OWASP technical projects.
> I invest tons of energy and time as an OWASP volunteer in many other
> ways. I have provided /criteria/ for technical project evaluations on
> several occasions throughout the years as well. Technical evaluation
> is just one criteria of quality, and yes I've reviewed all the links
> you shared and think you are mostly on the right track with your
> evaluation teams.
> Samantha, evaluating the quality of a OWASP project using OpenSAMM, a
> Software Development Lifecycle Evaluation criteria, seems so far from
> the mission of evaluating projects for quality, I felt I needed to
> step up and speak out so we stop this practice immediately and move to
> a quality based evaluation.
> The *measurement* of projects for quality is, per my understanding,
> the main reason we hired you. You have done a great job of building
> teams to work on this, but I implore you to condense the evaluation
> form into one form for each type of project, and minimize the OpenSAMM
> questions. I am loud about this because I see the evaluations underway
> already and we need to streamline this process into something that is
> scalable and effective.
> I realize you are managing 177 projects *and more*. We may want to
> change your focus from traveling to conferences (since we hired Laura
> Grau to manage conferences) so you can focus more on your project
> management duties. This is of course Sarah's call.
> I have no problem with your critique of my personality, that's fine.
> But that does not change the fact that we desperately need proper
> quality evaluation of projects and I implore you to heed my advice. I
> see in your report that you are about to undertake a review of all
> flagships, that is another reason why I am loudly suggesting you
> change course and stop using the OpenSAMM criteria.
> - Jim
>> I am sorry to disappoint you, but no you were not the only leader to
>> throw a tantrum on the staff this week. You certainly were one of
>> them, but not the only one. I deal with over 100 leaders in any given
>> day so to assume that my reports are only about your actions is very
>> Now, I appreciate your concerns, and if you would take the time to
>> read about the very hard work our community members have accomplished
>> (mainly our technical project advisors
>> <http://owasp.blogspot.com/2013/09/meet-our-new-technical-project-advisors.html> who
>> are very "Technical") that were brought together after you refused to
>> help me put this assessment criteria together after yet another
>> tantrum of yours, you would know the hard work that went into
>> creating this system/criteria. I recommend familiarizing yourself
>> with the process before making very inaccurate assumptions about what
>> is actually happening.
>> What the advisors did at the summit
>> pg. 25
>> Definition of assessments/reviews: Chapter 7
>> Jim, I love and respect you as a person, but this behavior is very
>> detrimental to our community and serves no purpose other than to
>> alienate very hard working volunteers that are taking on a task that
>> has not been able to be managed in a very long time (even before my
>> time here) due to the large amount of projects we have in our
>> inventory and the lack of resources we have as an organization. You,
>> as one of our Board of Directors, should know this better than anyone
>> in our community. If you have a better way of managing this, then by
>> all means recommend it. Just remember, I am not managing 5 projects,
>> I am managing 177 and our system must accommodate them all.
>> I implore you to take a step back, and think about what your actions
>> are actually accomplishing.
>> With respect,
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org
>> <mailto:jim.manico at owasp.org>> wrote:
>> In this report you say:
>> "My suggestion to those that are so very quick to criticizes the
>> hard work of others is to please familiarize yourself with the
>> actual efforts that have gone into these endeavors. If you see an
>> issue with something that we have done, please let us know, and I
>> welcome you to pitch in and help out. Many of our processes and
>> procedures are dependent on volunteer contributions, and if we
>> have no support in these areas, then there isn't much we can do
>> on the operations side as the resources we require are simply not
>> That was most certainly me. I have been concerned that the
>> various code projects at the flagship level are not deserving of
>> that status. I have also requested that several projects I assist
>> or manage be evaluated and it's been 6+ months with no activity
>> on that front - or better put, as a project manager of 3 OWASP
>> projects that I've requested evaluation for, no one has contacted
>> me as a project manager about the status of those reviews, so I
>> imagine other project managers in this situation have gotten the
>> What made me flip from "patience on this" to "alerting the board
>> and Sarah that I am very concerned about what is going on" is
>> that finally when you asked me to distribute a form to help folks
>> evaluate Dependency Check, it was nonsensical. It was a list of
>> OpenSAMM categorizes that should be used to evaluate a companies
>> SDLC; categories that really have nothing to do with OWASP
>> project quality evaluation. It makes me ask, what is going on?
>> And I'm very upset that this form is being using the evaluate
>> other projects, it a step in the wrong direction. I'd like to see
>> this fixed really soon.
>> Thank you.
>> - Jim
>> On 3/29/14, 8:53 AM, Samantha Groves wrote:
>>> Hello Leaders,
>>> Below is the link to my weekly projects report. Please reach out
>>> to me if you have any questions about any of the items in the
>>> report, and I will do my best to answer them.
>>> Projects Weekly Report: March 28, 2014
>>> Have a great weekend.
>>> Thank you, Leaders.
>>> *Samantha Groves, MBA*
>>> /OWASP Projects Manager/
>>> The OWASP Foundation
>>> Phoenix, USA
>>> Email: samantha.groves at owasp.org <mailto:samantha.groves at owasp.org>
>>> Skype: samanthahz
>>> OWASP Global Projects
>>> Book a Meeting with Me <http://goo.gl/mZXdZ>
>>> OWASP Contact US Form <http://owasp4.owasp.org/contactus.html>
>>> New Project Application Form <http://www.tfaforms.com/263506>
>>> Owasp_project_leader_list mailing list
>>> Owasp_project_leader_list at lists.owasp.org <mailto:Owasp_project_leader_list at lists.owasp.org>
>> *Samantha Groves, MBA*
>> /OWASP Projects Manager/
>> The OWASP Foundation
>> Phoenix, USA
>> Email: samantha.groves at owasp.org <mailto:samantha.groves at owasp.org>
>> Skype: samanthahz
>> OWASP Global Projects
>> Book a Meeting with Me <http://goo.gl/mZXdZ>
>> OWASP Contact US Form <http://owasp4.owasp.org/contactus.html>
>> New Project Application Form <http://www.tfaforms.com/263506>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders