If you've been following the Open Integrity Index, you will have noticed that after [our initial efforts in 2013](https://wiki.openintegrity.org/doku.php?id=workplan), the project has been on hold. During this first phase, we developed the foundations for [our criteria](https://wiki.openintegrity.org/doku.php?id=criteria_subcriteria_claim) and setup [a beta platform](https://openintegrity.org/v1). We now advance with [new funders](../../about#funding-partners) to develop the next step of the project with us.
If you've been following the Open Integrity Index, you will have noticed that after ~~[our initial efforts in 2013]()~~[Update: the old wiki has been taken down.], the project has been on hold. During this first phase, we developed the foundations for ~~[our criteria]()~~ and setup [a beta platform](/v1). We now advance with [new funders](../../about#funding-partners) to develop the next step of the project with us.
<!--more-->
...
...
@@ -20,4 +20,4 @@ Data about the adoption of security and privacy best practices are often difficu
- Which have security features that are **usable without prior expertise or training**?
- Which can be **downloaded securely and verified** to be authentic?
This is what we're setting out to answer. In the next 6 months we'll focus on [developing partnerships](../../partners#measurement) in order to **define metrics and collect data** that will be available for an audience of professionals (software engineers, trainers, advocacy organizations) and will help provide answers about best practices adoption.
This is what we're setting out to answer. In the next 6 months we'll focus on [developing partnerships](../../framework/partnerships) in order to **define metrics and collect data** that will be available for an audience of professionals (software engineers, trainers, advocacy organizations) and will help provide answers about best practices adoption.
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ On the 1st of April 2016, the Open Integrity Initiative (OII) team gathered wit
<!--more-->
As a starting point, the workshop built on the list of hundred of metrics assembled by the OII team over the past two years about software development features such as governance, systems, architecture, build and user experience. We used the OII participative framework [http://openintegrity.github.io/openintegrity.org/framework/workflow/meta/] to guide the development of partnerships and infrastructure to capture metrics about software practices ensuring users' privacy and security. Following this interactive process, we asked participants to share their own experiences or scenarios concerning these issues.
As a starting point, the workshop built on the list of hundred of metrics assembled by the OII team over the past two years about software development features such as governance, systems, architecture, build and user experience. We used the [OII participative framework](/framework/workflow/meta/) to guide the development of partnerships and infrastructure to capture metrics about software practices ensuring users' privacy and security. Following this interactive process, we asked participants to share their own experiences or scenarios concerning these issues.
Through the discussions, the framework allowed us to collect meaningful feedback to understand how specific practices mitigate specific threats in a constantly evolving context. This meeting also gave us the opportunity to collect insights regarding the debates currently at stake in this field of expertise. It is essential for us to encapsulate this information in available metrics to improve the transparency, reproducibility and traceability of the issues and assumptions.
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ We gain a lot of good things from this. **Traceability** (if the metadata about
Finally it's just a good pattern for scalability. Both for performance (it generally goes hand in hand with CQRS, i.e. separating reads from writes - which means accepting a world of eventual consistency), and for "ease to reason about" which helps when applications get more complex. It has a cost too, which is that it's more exotic than traditional RDBMS based approaches and that there are less frameworks available.
We ended up choosing CouchDB as our event store for the first phase of the project given that it has eventual consistency as its core. Has a polyglot app framework (Erlang, JS, Python and even Haskell) and that we had some past experiences with it. The map reduce incremental views seemed like a good fit for doing [Projections](http://localhost:9000/architecture/#data-projections) too.
We ended up choosing CouchDB as our event store for the first phase of the project given that it has eventual consistency as its core. Has a polyglot app framework (Erlang, JS, Python and even Haskell) and that we had some past experiences with it. The map reduce incremental views seemed like a good fit for doing [Projections](/architecture/#data-projections) too.
Consultation and development of **partnerships with existing measurements efforts** which help **evaluate the adoption practices** which impact end user security and privacy.
<divclass="center-block"style="max-width:250px">
<ahref="https://meta.openintegrity.org/metrics/"class="button button-primary">Join the Consultation</a>
