[Owasp-website] Website Redesign Request for OPEN Quotations

Jason Li jason.li at owasp.org
Wed Jul 20 22:33:48 EDT 2011


Rory,

I agree with Colin that we should lay out some kind of broad based timeline
and try to move forward based on that. I personally think it would be great
if we could unveil a new website look for OWASP at AppSecUSA (coinciding
with the 10th anniversary of OWASP). Of course that might be a little bit
aggressive timeline-wise, but it's a starting point...  thoughts?

As I mentioned privately, I know the Board did not get a chance to take
action on this request. However, the GPC is moving forward with our Projects
Portal and part of our approved budget includes funds for graphic design. I
will poll the other GPC members and see what we can do regarding
re-diverting some funding to perhaps kill two birds with one stone?

-Jason

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Colin Watson <colin.watson at owasp.org>wrote:

> Hi Rory!
>
> Thank you for the response.  I have put some replies in line:
>
> > Cool thanks for the questions.  Some answers as far as I know them.
> > I think the main point initial point is budget.  A request went to the
> last
> > board meeting for indicative funding of $5000 - $10000 for funding of the
> > website re-design (although that's purely a ballpark figure).  We've not
> > heard back officially from the board on the status of that request,
> although
> > I understand that unfortunately there wasn't time to cover it at the
> latest
> > meeting.
>
> Noted.
>
>
> > Closing date for quotations - None set.  My feeling here being that we'd
> > decide this once we have agreed funding :)
>
> Yes, makes sense.  I think it will be necessary to set some sort of
> timescales and stick with them.  Since OWASP is completely open, this
> will probably mean the submitted quotes are made public, and bidders
> might not want to submit before anyone else (and thus give their
> ideas/understanding to competitors).
>
> I have to declare an interest here.  I am considering submitting a
> quotation (jointly with others).  Therefore all my comments here are
> open, and to be shared with everyone, but it helps explain my intent!
>
>
> > Criteria for judging and whos responsible - Good question. My current
> > thought would be that we'd need to engage appropriate OWASP leaders
> > (although I'd be keen to keep the numbers here small to help maintain
> > momentum).  In terms of criteria, I'm open to suggestions here, but I was
> > thinking that it would be a combination of portfolio/track record (ie
> that
> > the company has delivered good designs in the past), cost (that the
> company
> > can deliver what's required within budget), how well the designs fit with
> > the specification, and how well the proposal demonstrates an uderstanding
> of
> > the requirements.
>
> That all sounds reasonable, maybe except for "how well the designs fit
> with the specification" which would only be known after appointment
> and work has begun?  Or have I misunderstood the process?
>
>
> > Timescales - I'd be interested to hear from anyone on the list who's
> > commissioned this kind of work before.  My feeling was that we'd be
> looking
> > at iterating the design and delivery of the templates and graphical
> assets
> > over a period of 2-3 weeks, but happy to hear if that's a unrealistic
> > timescale...
>
> It would be worth allowing longer, as "iterations" take time to do,
> and receive feedback.  Allowing for iterations will probably increase
> the bid values.  You may want to define how many rounds this involves.
>
>
> > Mocks approval - This would be along the lines of a) hopefully the same
> > OWASP leaders who were involved in choosing the designer and b) agreeing
> > that they meet the design as specified in the winning proposal.
>
> Noted.
>
>
> > Approval process - Agreed, I don't think it's realistic to try to engage
> the
> > whole OWASP community for this. I'd hope to have a small approvals
> > committee, who would be the same throughout the process.
>
> Noted.
>
>
> > CMS - Nope.  Initially what we're looking to deliver is a pure
> HTML/CSS/JS
> > solution.  this is primarily for ease of integration with the existing
> OWASP
> > website (we can place static content easily in the same webroot as the
> > mediawiki, without disrupting it), and ease of delivery (the process of
> > choosing a CMS for use here would add considerably to the delivery
> > timescales and may also overlap with other, more strategic, initiavitve
> > around products like Jive)
>
> Noted.
>
>
> > HTH, Of course any comments/corrections/suggestions welcome :)
> > cheers
>
> Thanks for this,
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Colin Watson <colin.watson at owasp.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I read about this request on Twitter, and have added some questions:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/RFO_Web_Design#Questions_from_Potential_Contractors
> >>
> >> Colin
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Owasp-website mailing list
> >> Owasp-website at lists.owasp.org
> >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-website
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-website mailing list
> Owasp-website at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-website
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-website/attachments/20110720/3eafe8cb/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Owasp-website mailing list