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

Clarify who maintains securesystemslib #444

Open
lukpueh opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Clarify who maintains securesystemslib #444

lukpueh opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
discussion Issues that require discussion docs

Comments

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member

lukpueh commented Oct 26, 2022

Description of issue or feature request:

From my understanding securesystemslib is maintained by in-toto and python-tuf maintainers. This is not clear to the public.

Current behavior:
Unclear who maintains securesystemslib.

Expected behavior:

  • Add paragraph to README that clarifies who maintains securesystemslib
  • Adopt GitHub and PyPI permissions accordingly

cc @JustinCappos, @SantiagoTorres, @adityasaky, @awwad, @jku, @joshuagl, @mnm678, @trishankatdatadog

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member Author

lukpueh commented Oct 26, 2022

Let's actually discuss who should have which GitHub/PyPI permissions for securesystemslib.

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Contributor

Let's actually discuss who should have which GitHub/PyPI permissions for securesystemslib.

Should be a union of the two maintainer sets IMHO.

@jku
Copy link
Collaborator

jku commented Oct 28, 2022

My 2c:

PyPI permissions

A minimal list of people: just enough to avoid bus factor issues.

GitHub permissions

I sympathize with the implicit wish for more maintainer resources... but I don't think people should be given permissions to do something that they are not actually planning to do: that just increases attack surface without benefits. I do support nudging all python-tuf and in-toto maintainers to make an active decision: are they willing to be securesystemslib maintainers or not? this could be a yearly check as well.

My response the question: I suppose that makes sense, I can be a maintainer here.

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Contributor

Datadog uses and contributes to it enough that we are also willing to be maintainers.

@adityasaky
Copy link
Member

I currently don't have PyPI permissions but I do have GitHub permissions. I'd like to retain the latter for some issues but I don't have the bandwidth to chime in on every PR. I'm also open to giving those up and subscribing to relevant PRs / issues directly.

On that point, if there are others who feel similarly, I wonder if we can link this repo to a channel on the CNCF slack so we can stay notified about new PRs and issues without getting all the GitHub notifications, and then subscribe to the specific threads that matter.

@lukpueh lukpueh added the docs label Nov 2, 2023
@lukpueh lukpueh added the discussion Issues that require discussion label Mar 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Issues that require discussion docs
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants