Notes: idpy Board call, 9 January 2019 - Idpy-board

9 Jan 2019


      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