-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
Move Minder to the ORBIT WG #506
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
f538233
to
d8d6f01
Compare
@ware @eddie-knight As WG chairs, can you both please confirm this transfer from ST to ORBIT? |
I confirm @marcelamelara. I'm sad to see them move, but very happy I was able to foster their donation to OpenSSF but this is the right move for them. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approving the move, but we've got to resolve the comment on changes to the lifecycle document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Following the discussions in #497, I don't believe want updates to the lifecycle documents.
Other @ossf/tac members — Thoughts here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we have a good way to fix e.g. broken links like https://minder-docs.stacklok.dev/, which is no longer functioning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we have a good way to fix e.g. broken links like https://minder-docs.stacklok.dev/, which is no longer functioning.
Yeah, that's called a redirect and if people could use that instead of tearing down websites and web pages we'd all be better off. :-(
(sorry for the rant, I know you have no control over that)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Filed this for discussion: #509
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@evankanderson we will work on a way to better track project metadata with #509, for now can you revert the changes to process/project-lifecycle-documents/minder_sandbox_stage.md
in this pull request?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reverted.
Signed-off-by: Evan Anderson <[email protected]>
d8d6f01
to
d57eefa
Compare
(I think this needs @justaugustus to update his "request changes" review, and then a merge) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @evankanderson!
When Minder was submitted to the OpenSSF, there was not a clear fit for the project in the existing working groups. The ORBIT (Open Resources for Baselines, Interoperability, and Tooling) seems like a clearer fit for Minder's ability to assess repositories and other supply chain resources for policy and control compliance, as we are actively participating in baseline conversations and looking to build automated assessments and remediations for baseline controls.
This records the move; it also updates the Security Insights Spec and Security Baseline project's move to the ORBIT WG.