A simple yes/no question about the subscribers to the private list seems fine to me.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 17:47, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Related, should we ask the podling if all PPMC members (and only PPMC members > or invited outsiders) are subscribed to the private mail list? > > Craig > > > > On Mar 6, 2025, at 07:02, PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > As a concrete proposal, can I suggest adding a question to the podling > > report. > > > > Something like: > > Is the podling PPMC being responsive to email threads on the private > > mailing list (don't discuss specific instances here because the threads are > > private)? > > > > I know this is a long winded question that really only expects a yes/no > > answer or something like: > > The PPMC has become less responsive recently. I will reach out to PPMC > > members to see if they can devote some more time to the private threads. > > > > The idea of the question is to act as a reminder of the importance of the > > private email threads. > > > > It would also be good if the shepherds also check the private threads when > > reviewing podling reports and report if they think there is a > > responsiveness issue. > > > > > > On 2025/01/26 07:42:16 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> This is a good proposal. As part of the new reporting tool for > >> project, it's a security section is part of the report. > >> > >> So, it makes sense to have it for podlings. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:35 PM PJ Fanning <fannin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I didn't follow up on this when I raised it in December 2023. I'd like > >>> to propose it again. > >>> Basically, the idea is that the podling reports, that we do every 3 > >>> months, would have a question about whether the podling believes that > >>> they are being sufficiently responsive to issues raised on their > >>> private mailing list (particularly security issues). There would maybe > >>> also be a reminder about the ASF policies related to dealing with > >>> disclosures about vulnerabilities [1]. > >>> I would also like to see a section about this in the Graduation Report > >>> - having podlings declare that they have been and intend to continue > >>> to be responsive to disclosures about vulnerabilities. This is covered > >>> by QU30 in the Project Maturity Model [2] but I wonder if the text > >>> could be adjusted to also mention the need to be responsive to > >>> vulnerability reports. > >>> With efforts like the CRA [3] and other regulatory requirements around > >>> the world, this area is becoming even more important. > >>> > >>> What do people think? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> PJ > >>> > >>> [1] https://www.apache.org/security/ > >>> [2] > >>> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html#quality > >>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Resilience_Act > >>> > >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 16:21, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi PJ, > >>>> > >>>> I agree that there should be a section in podlings' reports that > >>>> highlights <private/> security issues. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 05:22, PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm wondering if podlings should include some details about their > >>>>> security issues [1] in their 3 podling reports. We won't want to > >>>>> release information about any security issues that are still under > >>>>> investigation or where the fix is not yet released. I still think > >>>>> there is little harm in podlings giving high level numbers and maybe > >>>>> some indication of how quickly security issues are being dealt with. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've seen evidence that some TLPs are unaware of the importance of > >>>>> dealing quickly with security reports and I think the Incubator team > >>>>> could help with ensuring that podlings are aware of the requirements. > >>>>> > >>>>> I will certainly be having a close look at a podling's record of > >>>>> handling security reports when it comes to discussions about > >>>>> graduation. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm wondering if we could have some consensus on what is expected of > >>>>> podlings. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> PJ > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/security/ > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Craig L Russell > >>>> c...@apache.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
