openchain:proposed-draft
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
openchain:proposed-draft [2015/01/22 23:50] Kellyw [First Approximation of a Compliance Reference Model] |
openchain:proposed-draft [2016/08/11 12:12] (current) AliceSmith [Software Engineering Institute (SEI)] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| The compliance reference model will consist of a set of goals and supporting practices. In appraising whether the goals have been met, auditors typically look at the supporting practices to see whether they have been performed or instantiated. Six goals and their supporting practices are outlined below. The complete reference model will define additional levels of detail and alternative supporting practices, while the appraisal methodology will guide auditors in what to look for and how to determine whether or not a goal has been met. __Part of the certification includes the requirement that those employees who need to adhere to the process be trained on it. Additionally, as the process is dependent on such employees’ ability to know when the process is triggered (e.g., when certain open source software is used) such employees need to be trained on a consistent set of topical areas that are incorporated into the educational materials, that we propose also form part of the certification criteria.__ | The compliance reference model will consist of a set of goals and supporting practices. In appraising whether the goals have been met, auditors typically look at the supporting practices to see whether they have been performed or instantiated. Six goals and their supporting practices are outlined below. The complete reference model will define additional levels of detail and alternative supporting practices, while the appraisal methodology will guide auditors in what to look for and how to determine whether or not a goal has been met. __Part of the certification includes the requirement that those employees who need to adhere to the process be trained on it. Additionally, as the process is dependent on such employees’ ability to know when the process is triggered (e.g., when certain open source software is used) such employees need to be trained on a consistent set of topical areas that are incorporated into the educational materials, that we propose also form part of the certification criteria.__ | ||
| - | ===== Section 1 ===== | + | ===== Outline of Compliance Reference Model ===== |
| - | G1: Everyone knows their FOSS responsibilities\\ | + | G = Goal\\ |
| - | Supporting Practices:\\ | + | SP = Supporting Practices\\ |
| - | SP1.1 FOSS policy exists\\ | + | C = Criteria for supporting practices\\ |
| - | SP1.2 FOSS compliance training program actively used\\ | + | (see charts below for original version) |
| - | G2: Responsibility for achieving compliance is assigned\\ | + | - **G1: Everyone knows their FOSS responsibilities** |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | - SP1.1 FOSS policy exists |
| - | SP2.1 FOSS Compliance Officer exists\\ | + | * C1.1.1 Written |
| - | SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced\\ | + | * C1.1.2 Internally available |
| - | -SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed\\ | + | * C1.1.3 Content must include: |
| - | -SP2.2.2 Compliance tool needs are identified\\ | + | * distribution of open source |
| - | -SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed\\ | + | * internal use for code generation |
| - | SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available\\ | + | * requirement to comply with licenses |
| - | + | * utilization of a FOSS approval process | |
| - | G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known\\ | + | - SP1.2 FOSS compliance training program actively used |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | * C1.2.1 Required for all relevant employees, including: |
| - | SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted\\ | + | * software developers |
| - | SP3.2 Supplier compliance is managed\\ | + | * software program managers |
| - | -SP3.2.1 Supplier compliance practices are assessed\\ | + | * software procurement roles |
| - | -SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed\\ | + | * C1.2.2 Content: |
| - | -SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied\\ | + | * Identify FOSS |
| - | SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained\\ | + | * FOSS concepts and obligations |
| - | + | * How to adhere to FOSS approval process | |
| - | G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved\\ | + | * C1.2.3 Delivery method\\ |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | * In-person, online //(JL: should we dictate what format the training delivery method should be? Is this to mean it can be in either in-person or online - or needs to be in both formats?)// |
| - | SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately\\ | + | * C1.2.4 Compliance and attendance //(JL: compliance with the training? might not want to use the word "compliance" here as it is more associated with license compliance?)// |
| - | SP4.2 Planned FOSS use is reviewed in context | + | * Recordkeeping |
| - | SP4.3 License obligations are identified, understood, and documented\\ | + | * Reoccurring training |
| - | SP4.4 Issues are resolved and approval decisions are followed\\ | + | - **G2: Responsibility for achieving compliance is assigned** |
| - | + | - SP2.1 FOSS Compliance Officer exists | |
| - | G5: FOSS obligations are satisfied\\ | + | - SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | * SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed |
| - | SP5.1 Documentation obligations are met\\ | + | * SP2.2.2 Compliance tool needs are identified //(JL: do we want to specifically say "tools"? Are tools always required, e.g. small companies who still want to use these guidelines?)// |
| - | SP5.2 Source code obligations are met\\ | + | * SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed |
| - | SP5.3 Community interface exists\\ | + | - SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available //(JL: recommend putting this as first SP here)// |
| - | -SP5.3.1 Email and postal addresses work\\ | + | - **G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known** //consider making this G2?// |
| - | -SP5.3.2 Web portal works\\ | + | - SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted |
| - | -SP5.3.3 Community requests and inquiries are satisfied\\ | + | - SP3.2 Supplier compliance is managed //(JL: define who a supplier is; what if the company in question is situated to not really have suppliers, do they still have to comply with these goals?)// |
| - | + | * SP3.2.1 Supplier compliance practices are assessed | |
| - | G6: Community <del>contributions are encouraged</del> engagement is understood\\ | + | * SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed |
| - | Supporting Practices:\\ | + | * SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied |
| - | <del>SP6.1: Individual contributions are reviewed and approved</del>\\ | + | - SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained //(JL: move up in list here)// |
| - | <del>SP6.2: Company contributions are reviewed and approved</del>\\ | + | - **G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved** |
| - | __SP6.1: Community participation is reviewed and approved.__ | + | - SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately |
| + | - SP4.2 Planned FOSS use is reviewed in context | ||
| + | - SP4.3 License obligations are identified, understood, and documented | ||
| + | - SP4.4 Issues are resolved and approval decisions are followed | ||
| + | - **G5: FOSS obligations are satisfied** | ||
| + | - SP5.1 Documentation obligations are met | ||
| + | - SP5.2 Source code obligations are met | ||
| + | - SP5.3 Community interface exists | ||
| + | * SP5.3.1 Email and postal addresses work | ||
| + | * SP5.3.2 Web portal works | ||
| + | * SP5.3.3 Community requests and inquiries are satisfied | ||
| + | - **G6: Community <del>contributions are encouraged</del> engagement is understood** | ||
| + | - <del>SP6.1: Individual contributions are reviewed and approved</del> | ||
| + | - <del>SP6.2: Company contributions are reviewed and approved</del> | ||
| + | - __SP6.1: Community participation is reviewed and approved.__ | ||
| {{:openchain:g1.jpg|}} | {{:openchain:g1.jpg|}} | ||
| Line 107: | Line 121: | ||
| {{:openchain:g6.jpg|}} | {{:openchain:g6.jpg|}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| ====== Appendix B ====== | ====== Appendix B ====== | ||
| Line 154: | Line 163: | ||
| Although the SEI originally focused on self-appraisals to encourage frank and confidential internal discussions about improvement needs, eventually many DoD contract sponsors required that bidders provide evidence of (at least) Level 3 maturity. These funding agencies required an appraisal, conducted by a government-approved appraisal team, as part of the award process. | Although the SEI originally focused on self-appraisals to encourage frank and confidential internal discussions about improvement needs, eventually many DoD contract sponsors required that bidders provide evidence of (at least) Level 3 maturity. These funding agencies required an appraisal, conducted by a government-approved appraisal team, as part of the award process. | ||
| - | Over time, the SEI’s model was recognized for the soundness of its software engineering principles and its ability to drive process improvements. A large community of industry and government people coalesced around its guidance. The model itself has continued to evolve and has spawned additional maturity models, as well as a cottage industry of consultants offering appraisal and training services. | + | Over time, the SEI’s model was recognized for the soundness of its software engineering principles and its ability to drive process improvements. A large community of industry and government people coalesced around its guidance. The model itself has continued to evolve and has spawned additional maturity models, as well as a cottage industry of consultants offering appraisal and training [[https://www.linkedin.com/company/redgage-llc | services]]. |
| ==== ISO 9001 ==== | ==== ISO 9001 ==== | ||
openchain/proposed-draft.1421970620.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/01/22 23:50 by Kellyw
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
