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 [2015/02/03 14:59] jlovejoy |
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 ===== |
| - | G = Goal__\\ | + | G = Goal\\ |
| - | SP = Supporting Practices__\\ | + | SP = Supporting Practices\\ |
| - | C = Criteria for supporting practices | + | C = Criteria for supporting practices\\ |
| + | (see charts below for original version) | ||
| - | - G1: Everyone knows their FOSS responsibilities | + | - **G1: Everyone knows their FOSS responsibilities** |
| - SP1.1 FOSS policy exists | - SP1.1 FOSS policy exists | ||
| * C1.1.1 Written | * C1.1.1 Written | ||
| * C1.1.2 Internally available | * C1.1.2 Internally available | ||
| * C1.1.3 Content must include: | * C1.1.3 Content must include: | ||
| - | * distribution of open source__\\ | + | * distribution of open source |
| - | * internal use for code generation__\\ | + | * internal use for code generation |
| - | * requirement to comply with licenses__\\ | + | * requirement to comply with licenses |
| - | * utilization of a FOSS approval process__\\ | + | * utilization of a FOSS approval process |
| - | + | - SP1.2 FOSS compliance training program actively used | |
| - | SP1.2 FOSS compliance training program actively used\\ | + | * C1.2.1 Required for all relevant employees, including: |
| - | + | * software developers | |
| - | __Criteria:__\\ | + | * software program managers |
| - | __C1.2.1 Required for all relevant employees, including:__ | + | * software procurement roles |
| - | * __software developers__ | + | * C1.2.2 Content: |
| - | * __software program managers__ | + | * Identify FOSS |
| - | * __software procurement roles__ | + | * FOSS concepts and obligations |
| - | __C1.2.2 Content:__\\ | + | * How to adhere to FOSS approval process |
| - | * __Identify FOSS__\\ | + | * C1.2.3 Delivery method\\ |
| - | * __FOSS concepts and obligations__\\ | + | * 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?)// |
| - | * __How to adhere to FOSS approval process__\\ | + | * 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?)// |
| - | __C1.2.3 Delivery method__\\ | + | * Recordkeeping |
| - | * __In-person, online__\\ | + | * Reoccurring training |
| - | __C1.2.4 Compliance and attendance__\\ | + | - **G2: Responsibility for achieving compliance is assigned** |
| - | * __Recordkeeping__\\ | + | - SP2.1 FOSS Compliance Officer exists |
| - | * __Reoccurring training__\\ | + | - SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced |
| - | + | * SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed | |
| - | G2: Responsibility for achieving compliance is assigned\\ | + | * 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?)// |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | * SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed |
| - | SP2.1 FOSS Compliance Officer exists\\ | + | - SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available //(JL: recommend putting this as first SP here)// |
| - | SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced\\ | + | - **G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known** //consider making this G2?// |
| - | -SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed\\ | + | - SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted |
| - | -SP2.2.2 Compliance tool needs are identified\\ | + | - 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?)// |
| - | -SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed\\ | + | * SP3.2.1 Supplier compliance practices are assessed |
| - | SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available\\ | + | * SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed |
| - | + | * SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied | |
| - | G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known\\ | + | - SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained //(JL: move up in list here)// |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | - **G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved** |
| - | SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted\\ | + | - SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately |
| - | SP3.2 Supplier compliance is managed\\ | + | - SP4.2 Planned FOSS use is reviewed in context |
| - | -SP3.2.1 Supplier compliance practices are assessed\\ | + | - SP4.3 License obligations are identified, understood, and documented |
| - | -SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed\\ | + | - SP4.4 Issues are resolved and approval decisions are followed |
| - | -SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied\\ | + | - **G5: FOSS obligations are satisfied** |
| - | SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained\\ | + | - SP5.1 Documentation obligations are met |
| - | + | - SP5.2 Source code obligations are met | |
| - | G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved\\ | + | - SP5.3 Community interface exists |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | * SP5.3.1 Email and postal addresses work |
| - | SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately\\ | + | * SP5.3.2 Web portal works |
| - | SP4.2 Planned FOSS use is reviewed in context | + | * SP5.3.3 Community requests and inquiries are satisfied |
| - | SP4.3 License obligations are identified, understood, and documented\\ | + | - **G6: Community <del>contributions are encouraged</del> engagement is understood** |
| - | SP4.4 Issues are resolved and approval decisions are followed\\ | + | - <del>SP6.1: Individual contributions are reviewed and approved</del> |
| - | + | - <del>SP6.2: Company contributions are reviewed and approved</del> | |
| - | G5: FOSS obligations are satisfied\\ | + | - __SP6.1: Community participation is reviewed and approved.__ |
| - | Supporting practices:\\ | + | |
| - | 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\\ | + | |
| - | Supporting Practices:\\ | + | |
| - | <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 133: | Line 121: | ||
| {{:openchain:g6.jpg|}} | {{:openchain:g6.jpg|}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| ====== Appendix B ====== | ====== Appendix B ====== | ||
| Line 180: | 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.1422975547.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/02/03 14:59 by jlovejoy
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
