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
Hello idpy board members!
On our annual call earlier this year, we discussed meeting after the R&E/FedCM Hackathon to determine what impact (if any) the outcomes of that meeting would have on idpy.
First off, the meeting was quite successful in that the group came up with two proposals that might be viable and allow browser to distinguish between unconsented tracking and a federated authentication flow without messing with the protocols involved. You can read the proposals here:
https://github.com/fedidcg/proposals/issues/4https://github.com/fedidcg/proposals/issues/5
The group did not have time to really dive into the proxy use cases; we will come back to that after we’ve received feedback on the initial proposals. It does sound like pyff might be a part of at least one if not both of the proposals; Leif, Sam (Google) and others will look at that as part of early prototyping to kick these proposals around a bit.
Beyond that, I don’t think the board has much we need to do at this time. If you have any questions or are interested in following the work, you can either join the FedID CG or the new REFEDS working group (which will focus entirely on the R&E use case).
Please let me know if you have any questions!
Thanks! Heather
