[Owasp-leaders] Back into the Hornet's nest- Kick Off Projects

Kevin W. Wall kevin.w.wall at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 06:36:27 UTC 2016


On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM, johanna curiel curiel
<johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After having many discussions in the past around multiple issues related to
> governance and projects, I would like to congratulate the Board for the
> latest decisions made. These have not been easy and without altercations
> (including me quite upset with the situation) , but I believe that the
> latest actions have shown that everyone is trying to achieve common goals
> and the community's opinions has not been ignored.
>
> This year we hope we can kick off Projects with some serious actions.
>
> I have set this proposal which I'll be presenting to the Board meeting on
> the 13th January so we can discuss this further and I strongly invite all
> leaders to participate in the upcoming meeting on the 27th January

I plan to be at the 1/27 meeting, even if I have to take PTO to do so.

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PvNeEWgoO1w51VhHLwqqSgo0mBh-RvmSFUKMTz4QrYg/edit#heading=h.lw77ixr6kxi
>
> Come with an idea you can help implement, any small actions do help.

There's a lot of stuff that I like here, some stuff that I'm uncertain about,
and a few things that I have concerns over.

I like the idea of the "year graduation incentives" as long as you
change them all that the $$ go to the project budget and not merely
to the project leader(s) or contributors. IMO, it should be used to
help people attend various OWASP sponsored events that they might
not otherwise be able to afford or to somehow help drum up other
volunteers rather than just being spent on a giant pizza party / beer
blast (not that I dislike those), but of course that's for the projects
to decide for themselves. Question: Should any stipulations be placed
on how the funds are used or when they must be used by? Better to
think about that now before it gets adopted.

I'm uncertain about the Project Reviews Code thing. I agree that
we don't want it to turn into a popularity contest, but I think that
using rankings via the Toolswatch Project is not a good solution
because many of the projects we have are not "tools" per se and
thus would be unlikely to receive votes. (Think Java Encoder
Project, Java HTML Sanitizer, ESAPI, etc.) They don't fit into
that "tools" category and thus would not likely garner many
votes regardless of how good there were or how much they
improved. Also, I think that it somewhat turns the project into
evangelism. I personally suck at that. Manico OTOH (IMO) is very good
at that. I suck at it mostly because I disdain doing it. It seems too
much like tooting one's own horn IMO so anything that "smells"
like that and I'm out as a leader. I'm sure I'm not the only project
leader who feels that way.

Regarding continuous monitoring...good concept, but the
devil is in the details. All but the most successful FOSS projects
seem to run in spurts. I think a yearly release is acceptable
if it doesn't have to be a major point release with lots of
(or any) enhancements...bug fixes (a certain percentage of
the total or some minimal # perhaps) should be required.
As for project activity, how to you measure that. In the past,
I've had a tendency to create a private branch (in SVN days)
and work on that and only rarely do commits. A lot of people
work like that because they know what they have is a
work-in-progress and they don't feel ready to share it with
the world at any given moment. So if (for example) we were
to measure "activity" somehow by regular commits and it
was the habit of the few contributors to do most of the work
privately and then only do 1 or 2 massive commits in the end,
how would that compare to those who prefer to do much
smaller weekly commits? In other words, we need to measure
this 'activity' in some neutral manner that doesn't force a
certain way of working. As for suggestions, I have none, but
I'll try to think about it.

Lastly what I am concerned about. I think your intent is good..to
drive quality, but some important projects where we can barely
get people to assist volunteering and are barely hanging one because
they are 1 or 2 person shows, the additional requirements of
using SWAMP and/or Coverity or getting Badges is just going to
place an additional burden on these projects and most likely
cause them to shrivel up and die. I am not against those things
per se, but most SAST tools are full of false positives and it can
take quite a bit of time going through all the identified instances and
vetting each of them. If OWASP wants to volunteer someone to
help out the projects with this--using SWAMP or Coverity and
possibly doing a first pass at tossing out the false positives, then
I think it might be workable. Otherwise, I think that the projects
that are just hanging on are going to throw in the towel.

@Tom: Can we suggest topics for the 1/27 (or future meetings) somewhere
             or is the agenda already full?

-kevin
P.S.- You know how hard it was to refrain from stating that famous
  quote from the movie _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ :D
-- 
Blog: http://off-the-wall-security.blogspot.com/
NSA: All your crypto bit are belong to us.


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list