[Owasp-leaders] New approach to OWAPS projects
psiinon at gmail.com
Wed May 11 11:12:44 UTC 2016
Sounds good to me :)
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM, johanna curiel curiel <
johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>But I still think the Flagship / Labs / Incubator classification is
> really useful, especially for those people outside of OWASP who want to
> know which projects they should start with.
> We keep this. The idea is to have the technical senior project coordinator
> + project coordinator maintain Openhub and to take those evaluations
> and verify the information from the CII Badge Criteria or Self-abasement
> The reviews are published as I did here:
> and we ask the community to review them too and provide 'ratings' in Open
> A project should fulfil indicators to get support. But we stop try
> measuring Quality because I don't think thats feasible.
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:56 AM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm good with all of that.
>> But I still think the Flagship / Labs / Incubator classification is
>> really useful, especially for those people outside of OWASP who want to
>> know which projects they should start with.
>> How to we manage the promotion and demotion of projects?
>> I dont think self certification will work here :/
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Project leaders,
>>> I think OWASP has failed multiple times to do a project assessments.
>>> This task has not been easy for anyone. Not in 2009 for the Global
>>> Committee lead by Jason Li, Neither for Samantha in 2013 and the project
>>> advisers(I was one of them) , not now.
>>> Instead a new realistic approach to projects should be introduced
>>> - We already measure projects 'activity'
>>> <https://www.openhub.net/p/zaproxy> using open hub (as long as we
>>> keep on configuring this properly and maintaining but is simple)
>>> - We could allow projects self asses wether based on CII criteria
>>> or an indicators through self assessment form like this one
>>> - We can use the results of self-assesment to evaluate as indicators
>>> for providing sponsorship and support
>>> *For this part we don't need a team of specialist or reviewers. This
>>> could be published and allow the community to provide a rating star
>>> though Openhub (yes you can rate projects on Openhub!):*
>>> Measure the 'quality' of a project is not simple. We don't have a team
>>> for this.
>>> Instead we should empower:
>>> - Measure activity and indicators to allow projects use OWASP
>>> platform (Chapters and Conferences) to market projects
>>> - Empower the community to rate projects on Openhub:
>>> - Provide sponsorship and support projects after they requested
>>> help. Such as run Bounty programs now that we have this platform available.
>>> - sponsor traveling cost for leaders to talk at OWAPS conferences
>>> Place focus on supporting projects instead of regulating what you can't.
>>> Johanna Curiel
>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>> OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
> Johanna Curiel
> OWASP Volunteer
OWASP ZAP <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ZAP> Project leader
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders