Re: Proposal - OpenChain Quality of Conformance Assessment Levels (including a sub-proposal for tooling quality assessment levels)

Jari Koivisto

Hi All,

I think that this new slide 10 is better now. It might add unnecessary complexity, but maybe each of the 4 arrows could have a small loop arrow on top depicting the nature of iterative work involved at each state, e.g. a company may try several types of automation to create the artefacts. 


Jari Koivisto
E-mail: jari.p.koivisto@...
Mobile: +41 78 7479791
Skype: jari.p.koivisto

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 07:16, Shane Coughlan <scoughlan@...> wrote:
Thanks Steve. Slide 10 has been refined to place emphasis on the actions being non-normative evolution on the part of a single example company:

Regarding SPDX or other SBOM badges, I am sure we will see movement in this direction in the coming weeks.


On Aug 24, 2021, at 16:35, Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

Hi Shane,

As a comment on the revised slides, slide 10 doesn't work for me, since it shows a cycle, but you wouldn't go from your intended end-point (audit done) back to "just" OpenChain compliance without SBOM or automation.

As noted on the call, these aren't linear journeys, and an organisation could collect these plot tokens by wandering the map in whichever order they choose. They may add external audit first, then automation, then use that automation to produce their SBOMs.

I did like the idea of identifying them as best practices rather than "levels", because they can be adopted in any order. I did wonder whether it made sense to have a receiver award the SBOM badge to the supplier, but that might be problematic with respect to confidential business arrangements.

It would be nice if there were an SBOM badge that could be awarded to open source projects that are producing suitable output - uses SPDX Ids, includes an SBOM - but that's probably more down to the SPDX project than the OpenChain project.


Join { to automatically receive all group messages.