Better document goals and purpose

[joshbressers]

During the last meeting
it was pointed out that we don't have our goals and purpose clearly defined

I did some digging, and realized we do have goals and purpose. It's just not written down in a very consumable manner.

For example there are objectives and scope in the README
But they need to be better.

We have the mobilization plan that lays out much of this also
https://openssf.org/oss-security-mobilization-plan/
Look at page 44

The work we have put into progress is related to these, the people who helped craft these documents have failed to make the content consumable for new folks, which is what must be rectified.

The volunteers to start making this content consumable are
Vicky, Bunny, Randall, Sarah

[lumjjb]

I'd be happy to also help out with this if there's room to!

[joshbressers]

Sounds awesome @lumjjb.

I would suggest you chat with Vicky to see what the plan is

[vmbrasseur]

There is no plan yet. Currently, I haven't had a chance even to read this issue before just now. I request someone else take on leading this, because I can't realistically do more than advise on it for the foreseeable future.

[joshbressers]

@lumjjb Can you be convinced to take the lead on this one?

[lumjjb]

maybe :)... i am going to be out next week till 7 September, I can pick it up then if someone hasn't already.

[joshbressers]

I'll see if there's interest in the next meeting on Aug 30, if not, it's all yours :)

[vmbrasseur]

The work is starting over in a Google Doc.

We're starting by taking the text from the Mobilization Plan document and then refining it. Please edit/suggest/comment as you see fit.

[lumjjb]

I've restructured the doc (changes tracked - but may be a bit messy so if folks find it easier, i can accept all the changes).

I've added some comments to suggest moving certain aspects to a separate document as well.

[joshbressers]

I approved all your changes @lumjjb, this document is a lot easier to read now, thanks!

[stevespringett]

Looking at the goals and purpose, there is no mention of CycloneDX, is this meant to be format neutral or specific to SDPX?

[lumjjb]

Should be format neutral. A lot of the requirement SPDX wording was from the original document published, i think we would want to have the ongoing cdx work that the group envisions working on in the doc as well or move the actual work items to another doc and leave this high-level.

[sjanevans]

Saw your request in slack. +1, @joshbressers Will the issue let you @ me now?