Extending the project and working group life-cycle process

[gkunz]

This issue intends to discuss if the current life-cycle process is sufficiently detailed or if it needs to be evolved to cover more use cases of the growing OpenSSF project.

The current life-cycle process describes the requirements of and transitions between three maturity levels (incubating, active, end-of-life) for working groups. Questions for discussion:

• Shall the life-cycle process be extended from working group level down to sub-project level? This would allow WGs to host multiple sub-projects with varying levels of maturity and to better reflect the state of each sub-project.

• Can we define a general recommendation for how new projects join OpenSSF, e.g. as part of a working group.

• Shall the life-cycle process of projects include a “graduated” level (incubating, active, graduated, end-of-life) to indicate that a project has achieved a level of maturity which is suitable for broad adoption.

• Shall the life-cycle process define criteria for graduating projects from WGs-hosted-level to top level (sibling to WGs). Maybe that’s the key feature of the “graduated” level.

Any additional questions not covered by the list above?

[gkunz]

Closed. Continue in #78