Idpy-board November 2019

idpy-board@lists.sunet.se

3 participants
2 discussions

Notes: idpy Board call, 9 January 2019

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Attendees: Heather, Roland, Christos, Ivan, Mike, Leif, Chris Action items: * Heather to draft the survey text re: Note Well (assuming the board votes in February to agree to using a Note Well rather than a formal CLA) * Ivan to update the Security Incident Response plan to indicate that issues will be logged and kept indefinitely * Heather to send out a calendar invite for TIIME and a doodle poll for the call after that. Notes: 1. Signing Board Participation agreement 2. * Still waiting on legal approval to do this (Mike). Can not make any formal decisions until this is done. 3. CLA or Note Well? 4. * Expect to handle existing contributors and new contributors differently. * o We can always ask all existing contributors if they think they had permission to contribute code via the note well (rather than sign a CLA). “Here is the Note Well we’re adopting for all future contributions. D you believe you have any problems accepting this? Do you believe you might not have been able to accept it for your previous contribution?" o If individuals don’t respond, may need to consider what to do otherwise. We will send the survey, send a reminder, then start trying for personal contacts. And if none of that works, we’ll consider what code they’ve submitted and determine if we can do it a different way. Some of their code might already have been redone so we aren’t as in an urgent a situation with regards to their contribution. * What about the JOT libraries? This shouldn’t be a problem since only Roland has contributed. The OIDF might want a CLA from Roland (that is a separate conversation). * Leif strongly in favor of a Note Well (see draft here: https://github.com/IdentityPython/Governance) rather than a traditional CLA. We want it to be easy for people to contribute; there is an expense when lawyers are brought in, and lawyers often don’t understand what we’re trying to do. 5. Commons Conservancy 6. * Christos has been discussing this within GEANT. GEANT does not have a final answer regarding IPR, but should have a final answer by the end of this week. They needed clarification that all the idpy material would remain in the open source domain. 7. TIIME? 8. * Roland and Mike will not be there; will dial them in from 4pm to 5pm CET (last hour of the developers meeting) * We should create an e-vote mechanism; perhaps launch at a meeting and let it extend for 3 days for people not able to attend. * Agenda: voting on CLA, Note Well text, IPR, possibly an update from the developers meeting, talk about how to use an intern 9. Adding new projects to idpy 10. * pyFF split - the JavaScript component on the front end does not fit into idpy; that component belongs with the RA21 governance group. The backend remains part of idpy. This kind of evolution, since it’s not entirely removing the project, a Board decision. Leif withdraws his request. * FYI https://github.com/IdentityPython/IdentityPython.github.io/wiki/Adding-and-… 11. Incident Response 12. * Ivan has created the incident-response list. Ivan will add the board members to this list, as well as some of the key developers for the various projects within idpy. * o This came up as result of the following almost-bad security issue: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/issues/578 * There should be a page on the website re: how we recognize security research. (Some researchers contact developers expecting bug bounties. We can’t pay for this, but we can offer ‘payment’ in terms of recognition.) Look at SUNET’s website for an example. https://www.sunet.se/security-researcher-acknowledgments-for-sunet-services/ * o Heather to follow up on this and add it to the website. o Ivan to update (and Chris to review) the security incident response plan to be explicit that each item is logged and kept indefinitely in GitHub. 13. Next call - Heather to send out a doodle poll for end of February/beginning of March

1 month, 2 weeks

An item for the idpy Board

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Hola a todos, and long-time no hear! I have an item for board consideration; several of you are aware of this, but it hasn’t come up formally on the board yet. As you all may recall, we had been working on an MoU with the OpenID Foundation around the OIDC libraries. OIDF has decided NOT to continue direct support for those libraries, which makes moot the need for an MoU. It also re-opens the question as to who, how, and where those libraries should find a home.. I have no suggestions as to next steps here, but Roland may have more information. Roland, can you write up a bit more detail for the board, so w can all consider next steps? Thanks! Heather

6 years

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

Idpy-board November 2019