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

TAC question: where should ossf github org policies/tools live? #153

Closed
ljharb opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #155
Closed

TAC question: where should ossf github org policies/tools live? #153

ljharb opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #155

Comments

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Apr 12, 2023

Hi folks!

I asked this on Slack but figured here would be better for the long term.

I'm going to be writing up some repo management policies (via PR, seeking TAC approval, ofc) and am trying to figure out the best place for them to live. A top-level dir in this repo seems appropriate?

Also, I've written a very rough tool in the (currently private, but will be made public once a home is decided) https://github.com/ossf/github-org-access-scraper repo to be able to audit how many repos still have individuals (as opposed to teams) with access - should that also live in this repo, instead of its own?

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor

It's up to the TAC, but here are my two cents.

I think general technical policies belong in ossf/tac. However, nontrivial tools probably should go into a separate repo, as they would probably be maintained separately. The TAC shouldn't have to approve every code PR, they're already busy :-).

@ljharb
Copy link
Member Author

ljharb commented Apr 19, 2023

Pending further direction, I've opened #155 to add initial policies, and I'll leave the tool in a separate repo.

@ljharb ljharb closed this as completed Apr 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants