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 15:59] jlovejoy [Outline of Compliance Reference Model] |
openchain:proposed-draft [2016/08/11 12:12] (current) AliceSmith [Software Engineering Institute (SEI)] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| * How to adhere to FOSS approval process | * How to adhere to FOSS approval process | ||
| * C1.2.3 Delivery method\\ | * C1.2.3 Delivery method\\ | ||
| - | * In-person, online //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?// | + | * 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?)// |
| - | * C1.2.4 Compliance and attendance //compliance with the training? might not want to use the word "compliance" here as it is more associated with license compliance?// | + | * 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?)// |
| * Recordkeeping | * Recordkeeping | ||
| * Reoccurring training | * Reoccurring training | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| - SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced | - SP2.2 Compliance management activity is resourced | ||
| * SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed | * SP2.2.1 Processes, procedures, templates, forms, etc. are developed | ||
| - | * SP2.2.2 Compliance tool needs are identified //do we want to specifically say "tools"?// | + | * 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?)// |
| * SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed | * SP2.2.3 Compliance tools are evaluated, developed or acquired, and deployed | ||
| - | - SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available //recommend putting this as first SP here// | + | - SP2.3 Licensing expertise is available //(JL: recommend putting this as first SP here)// |
| - **G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known** //consider making this G2?// | - **G3: FOSS content (packages/license) is known** //consider making this G2?// | ||
| - SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted | - SP3.1 Code audits/scans are conducted | ||
| - | - SP3.2 Supplier compliance is managed //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 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 | * SP3.2.1 Supplier compliance practices are assessed | ||
| * SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed | * SP3.2.2 Supplier FOSS disclosures are made and reviewed | ||
| * SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied | * SP3.2.3 Supplier FOSS obligations are satisfied | ||
| - | - SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained //move up in list here// | + | - SP3.3 FOSS records are maintained //(JL: move up in list here)// |
| - **G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved** | - **G4: FOSS content is reviewed and approved** | ||
| - SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately | - SP4.1 OSRB exists and is staffed appropriately | ||
| Line 163: | 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.1422979153.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/02/03 15:59 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
