Skip to content
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

Resolve FRSCA #370

Open
presidentoor opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 10 comments
Open

Resolve FRSCA #370

presidentoor opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 10 comments
Labels
administration documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested

Comments

@presidentoor
Copy link

FRSCA appears to operate within the OpenSSF GitHub Enterprise Org (the parent to the github.com/ossf org), they appear to have a Honk logo, and they appear to be a project within which at least dependabot is active as well as one GH user. This is a tracking issue to monitor-to-resolve the status of FRSCA. The specific question has been posed to the SCI WG, which is claimed on the FRSCA repo as the sponsoring WG.

@SecurityCRob
Copy link
Contributor

@hepwori @camaleon2016 please review and comment

@SecurityCRob SecurityCRob added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested administration labels Jul 31, 2024
@hepwori
Copy link
Contributor

hepwori commented Jul 31, 2024

Happy to take a look. What's the actual question referenced by "this specific question has been posed…"?

@presidentoor
Copy link
Author

The question as to status. I placed it on the SCI WG agenda document.

@hepwori
Copy link
Contributor

hepwori commented Jul 31, 2024

Ack, got it. @mlieberman85 is closest to this and likely has latest on all the answers you seek. I tagged him in the doc.

@mlieberman85
Copy link
Contributor

This has come up a few times. FRSCA is a project, but I believe it has been archived or should have been.

@hepwori
Copy link
Contributor

hepwori commented Aug 13, 2024

@CoS-Harry does this get you what you need? FRSCA should be archived if it's not already :)

@sevansdell
Copy link
Contributor

@afmarcum Is archiving FRSCA an open item still from your perspective?

@afmarcum
Copy link
Contributor

@sevansdell ossf/wg-supply-chain-integrity#73 within the SCI WG repo remains open with @mlieberman85 (maintainer) approving the move to archive the project.

FRSCA does not actively meet, is not actively maintained, and has been removed from OpenSSF materials. The repo and Slack instance have not been not been archived.

I guess the question is whether WG lead approval is required to archive a Technical Initiative if the TI maintainers approve.

Staff can take care of any of admin work required to archive the project, but do not want to overstep the community. If the community is ok to proceed, we can make it happen. (archive repo, Slack channel, submit PR to update SCI WG README, and close both issues) If there are steps that the community prefers to handle directly, please let us know as well.

@mlieberman85
Copy link
Contributor

Let me check with the one maintainer who still pokes around with FRSCA to just make sure he's aware we plan on archiving it unless he plans to resurrect it.

@sevansdell
Copy link
Contributor

@mlieberman85 what was final decision? Archive?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
administration documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants
@mlieberman85 @hepwori @presidentoor @SecurityCRob @afmarcum @sevansdell and others