-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
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
Add the OpenSSF labs process #421
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ | ||
# OpenSSF Labs | ||
|
||
The OpenSSF Labs provide a space for open source projects that are in the | ||
earliest stages of their lifecycle to experiment, foster collaboration, and grow | ||
their community prior to transitioning into the OpenSSF [project lifecycle]. | ||
|
||
OpenSSF Labs follow a similar model to Hyperledger Labs. | ||
|
||
## Benefits | ||
|
||
The OpenSSF Labs provide OSS developers several benefits: | ||
|
||
* A common governance and legal framework under the OpenSSF that | ||
facilitates cross-organization or -vendor collaboration. | ||
* The lowest barrier to starting brand new projects. | ||
* A dedicated GitHub repository, if starting a lab from scratch. | ||
* A streamlined transition into the [Sandbox stage] of the OpenSSF [project | ||
lifecycle]. | ||
|
||
## Lab Responsibilities | ||
|
||
Developers of OpenSSF labs are responsible for: | ||
|
||
* Submitting a [new lab proposal] for review by the [OpenSSF TAC]. | ||
* Ensuring all commits are properly signed-off to avoid issues related to | ||
Developer Certificate of Origin ([DCO]). | ||
* Notifying the TAC if the lab needs to be suspended or archived. | ||
|
||
Labs are also highly encouraged to engage with the [existing | ||
Technical Initiatives] (working groups, projects or SIGs) in OpenSSF to build | ||
their community and find a potential pathway towards acceptance as an OpenSSF | ||
project. | ||
|
||
## Archiving | ||
|
||
The TAC will periodically check on the activity of labs. Labs that have been | ||
inactive for an extended period (6+ months), or are explicitly suspended by | ||
the maintainers, will be moved into the [Archived | ||
stage](templates/LAB_NAME_archived_stage.md). | ||
|
||
Archived lab repositories are not actively maintained and will be marked as | ||
"archived" (read-only) on GitHub. They can be reactivated if there is interest | ||
in resuming work on a lab. | ||
|
||
## New Lab Proposal Process | ||
|
||
1. Fork the `<TBD>` repo. | ||
|
||
2. Fill out the [proposal template](templates/LAB_NAME_lab_stage.md) | ||
and save it into the `labs` subdirectory under the name of your lab, | ||
such as `coolnewlab.md`. | ||
<br/> | ||
> [!TIP] | ||
> It is expected that your lab repository on GitHub will have the same | ||
> name as the proposal, so keep that in mind when submitting your proposal. | ||
|
||
3. In the proposal template, there is an entry for sponsor(s). Although this | ||
is not required, proposers are encouraged to seek a sponsor in the OpenSSF | ||
community who can help them create ties with the rest of the community | ||
and review the proposal to make sure it is novel and aligned with the | ||
[OpenSSF mission]. | ||
<br/> | ||
To find sponsors: | ||
1. use your connections to existing projects and ask maintainers, | ||
2. engage with [existing Technical Initiatives] (working groups, projects | ||
or SIGs) with affinities to the proposed lab and pitch it in | ||
their meetings or [Slack channels](https://slack.openssf.org/). It's | ||
good to have the template already filled out when you reach out. | ||
<br> | ||
> [!IMPORTANT] | ||
> Lab sponsors may, but are not required to, actively participate in | ||
> the lab once the proposal has been reviewed and accepted. | ||
|
||
4. Commit your changes with proper sign-off. This means that your commit | ||
log message must contain a line that looks like the following one, | ||
with your actual name and email address: | ||
|
||
`Signed-off-by: John Doe <[email protected]>` | ||
|
||
Adding the `-s` flag to your `git commit` command will add that line | ||
automatically. You can also add it manually as part of your commit | ||
log message or add it afterwards with `git commit --amend -s`. | ||
|
||
5. Submit a Pull Request to the `<TBD>` repo. | ||
|
||
The [OpenSSF TAC] will then review your proposal. Like sponsors, TAC members | ||
may, but are not required to, participate in ongoing work like contributing or | ||
reviewing code in the lab. | ||
|
||
### Transferring an existing repository | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would transferring existing repositories over to the labs org require a full license and IP review as for "full" projects coming into the OpenSSF? That could create a significant overhead and we may want to trade-off the intention of making labs a very accessible path into the OpenSSF space and putting the necessary guardrails in place. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't think transferring an existing repo to the labs org should require a full license and IP review, as long as they have one of the expected licenses and DCO. The full license and IP review becomes part of the transition requirement to sandbox stage. I can clarify this in the text. CC'ing @Naomi-Wash @riaankleinhans to confirm this. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I've updated the text with a note about this, please let me know what you think. |
||
|
||
By default, OpenSSF staff will create a new GitHub repository for you to | ||
start a new lab in. If you have an existing GitHub repo you would like to | ||
bring to your proposed lab, you have the option to request for that | ||
repo to be transferred into the <TBD GH org> instead. | ||
|
||
However, we require that every commit in the existing repo to bring is | ||
signed-off so there are no issues related to [DCO]. | ||
If that is not the case, you will need to transfer your existing code by | ||
squashing all of your commits into a single first commit made against | ||
your new lab repo with your sign-off. | ||
|
||
**Note**: A full intellectual property (IP) and legal review is not needed | ||
for OpenSSF Labs, but will be required if the lab seeks to transition to | ||
[Sandbox stage]. | ||
|
||
### License requirement | ||
|
||
OpenSSF Labs must use one of the following licenses as required in section 4a | ||
of the [OpenSSF charter](https://openssf.org/about/charter/): | ||
|
||
#### Software source code | ||
|
||
(1) Apache License, Version 2.0, available at [https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE- 2.0](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE- 2.0); or | ||
|
||
(2) MIT License available at [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) | ||
|
||
#### Data | ||
|
||
Any of the Community Data License Agreements, available at [https://www.cdla.io](https://www.cdla.io) | ||
|
||
#### Specifications | ||
|
||
Community Specification License, Version 1.0, available at [https://github.com/CommunitySpecification/1.0](https://github.com/CommunitySpecification/1.0) | ||
|
||
#### All other Documentation | ||
|
||
(1) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, available at [https://creative commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](https://creative commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) | ||
|
||
## Code of Conduct | ||
|
||
All OpenSSF community members must adhere to the | ||
[Code of Conduct](https://openssf.org/community/code-of-conduct/). | ||
|
||
[DCO]: https://developercertificate.org/ | ||
[existing Technical Initiatives]: https://github.com/ossf/tac/blob/main/README.md#technical-initiatives | ||
[new lab proposal]: #new-lab-proposal-process | ||
[OpenSSF mission]: https://openssf.org/about/ | ||
[OpenSSF TAC]: https://github.com/ossf/tac/blob/main/README.md#tac-members | ||
[project lifecycle]: https://github.com/ossf/tac/blob/main/process/project-lifecycle.md | ||
[Sandbox stage]: https://github.com/ossf/tac/blob/main/process/project-lifecycle.md#sandbox |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
## Archiving an OpenSSF Lab | ||
|
||
### Reasons for archiving | ||
The maintainers of the lab may decide to conclude/suspend their work, or | ||
the lab may become inactive over time. | ||
|
||
* "description of why this lab should be archived" |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ | ||
# Lab Name | ||
|
||
_Enter the name of your lab here._ | ||
|
||
## Short Description | ||
|
||
_Provide a short description of your lab. This will be used for the GitHub | ||
repository's description._ | ||
|
||
## Purpose | ||
|
||
_The lab must be aligned with the [OpenSSF | ||
mission](https://openssf.org/about/) and either be a novel | ||
approach for existing areas, address an unfulfilled need, or be initial or | ||
experimental code for an extension to an existing OpenSSF technical initiative. | ||
|
||
Describe the purpose and scope of the lab. This should include enough | ||
information to allow the TAC to understand how it aligns with the OpenSSF | ||
mission._ | ||
|
||
## Initial Committers | ||
|
||
_Enter the Github IDs for the set of initial committers._ | ||
- https://github.com/<user_id1> | ||
- https://github.com/<user_id2> | ||
- ... | ||
|
||
## Sponsor | ||
|
||
_Provide the name of your sponsor, if you have one. A sponsor is optional, but | ||
the sponsor must be a maintainer of an active OpenSSF project, a WG or SIG chair, or a TAC member. | ||
|
||
Read about sponsors' duty in [Section 3, New labs proposal | ||
process](../labs-process.md#new-lab-proposal-process)._ | ||
|
||
- https://github.com/<user_id> or <Name ([email protected])>, <role> (e.g., | ||
"Chair of the XYZ working group") | ||
|
||
## Pre-existing repository | ||
|
||
_If you currently have a GitHub repository that you wish to transfer to the OpenSSF Labs organization, please provide a link here. | ||
**NOTE: Please refer to the [Transferring an existing repo | ||
guidelines](../labs-process.md#transferring-an-existing-repo) for additional | ||
information on existing repositories.**_ | ||
|
||
- https://github.com/<your_repo> |
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.
This is exactly the question - where should this content live? Since the TAC is the one reviewing the requests, maybe it makes sense to have this content in the TAC repo? And then the labs themselves will be part of an ossf-labs GitHub organization? Or will they be in the same ossf GitHub organization with something in their README that says they are a lab (e.g. pre-sandbox)?
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.
I'm a bit torn between this content living in the TAC repo and in a dedicated
ossf-labs/onboarding
repo, which the TAC would have access to. I see a few tradeoffs.The biggest advantage of keeping this content in the TAC repo, I think, is that the overhead in getting this set up would be quite low, we already have a process for managing new incoming PRs, everyone has the necessary permissions etc.
The advantage of having this content live in the dedicated
ossf-labs
repo is that it would be more clearly associated with the labs, we could set the content up as a website, and if the need for a separate labs review committee ever arose, we wouldn't have to worry about separation of duties since it would become a matter of updating the repo maintainers. But it does (currently) increase the burden on the TAC and staff to maintain another repo.FWIW, Hyperledger Labs, for example, does use a separate repo for labs onboarding.
@lehors what are your thoughts on this, since you have more experience with creating a lab space?