Submit Buildpacks for Graduation consideration

[microwavables]

The purpose of this issue is to track tasks associated with getting Buildpacks for CNCF project graduation. The time it takes from opening a PR to final decision varies wildly and depends on what is uncovered in the review process, as you can see with Cilium taking nearly a year. But the average time seems to be 9 months.

Note: I've completely edited everything below to reflect the NEW application form as they just updated it within the last 2 weeks.

---

This template provides the project with a framework to inform the TOC of their conformance to the Graduation Level Criteria.

$PROJECT Graduation Application

v1.5 This template provides the project with a framework to inform the TOC of their conformance to the Graduation Level Criteria.

Project Repo(s): $URL Project Site: $URL Sub-Projects: $LIST Communication: $SLACK

Project points of contacts: $NAME, $EMAIL

Graduation Criteria Summary for $PROJECT

Adoption Assertion

The project has been adopted by the following organizations in a testing and integration or production capacity:

Criteria

Application Process Principles

Suggested

N/A

Required

• [ ] Give a presentation and engage with the domain specific TAG(s) to increase awareness

- [ ] **TAG provides insight/recommendation of the project in the context of the landscape** - [ ] **All project metadata and resources are [vendor-neutral](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/).** - [ ] **Review and acknowledgement of expectations for graduated projects and requirements for moving forward through the CNCF Maturity levels.** - [ ] Met during Project's application on DD-MMM-YYYY. Completion of this due diligence document, resolution of concerns raised, and presented for public comment satisifies the Due Diligence Review criteria. - [ ] **Additional documentation as appropriate for project type, e.g.: installation documentation, end user documentation, reference implementation and/or code samples.** ## Governance and Maintainers Note: this section may be augmented by the completion of a Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy. ### Suggested - [ ] **Governance has continuously been iterated upon by the project as a result of their experience applying it, with the governance history demonstrating evolution of maturity alongside the project's maturity evolution.** ### Required - [ ] **Clear and discoverable project governance documentation.** - [ ] **Governance is up to date with actual project activities, including any meetings, elections, leadership, or approval processes.** - [ ] **Governance clearly documents [vendor-neutrality](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/) of project direction.** - [ ] **Document how the project makes decisions on leadership roles, contribution acceptance, requests to the CNCF, and changes to governance or project goals.** - [ ] **Document how role, function-based members, or sub-teams are assigned, onboarded, and removed for specific teams (example: Security Response Committee).** - [ ] **Document complete list of current maintainers, including names, contact information, domain of responsibility, and affiliation.** - [ ] **A number of active maintainers which is appropriate to the size and scope of the project.** - [ ] **Document a complete maintainer lifecycle process (including roles, onboarding, offboarding, and emeritus status).** - [ ] **Demonstrate usage of the maintainer lifecycle with outcomes, either through the addition or replacement of maintainers as project events have required.** - [ ] **Project maintainers from at least 2 organizations that demonstrates survivability.** - [ ] **Code and Doc ownership in Github and elsewhere matches documented governance roles.** - [ ] **Document agreement that project will adopt CNCF Code of Conduct.** - [ ] **CNCF Code of Conduct is cross-linked from other governance documents.**

• [ ] All subprojects, if any, are listed.

- [ ] **If the project has subprojects: subproject leadership, contribution, maturity status documented, including add/remove process.** ## Contributors and Community Note: this section may be augmented by the completion of a Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy. ### Suggested - [ ] **Contributor ladder with multiple roles for contributors.** ### Required - [ ] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to submit issues or changes.** - [ ] **Project must have, and document, at least one public communications channel for users and/or contributors.** - [ ] **List and document all project communication channels, including subprojects (mail list/slack/etc.). List any non-public communications channels and what their special purpose is.** - [ ] **Up-to-date public meeting schedulers and/or integration with CNCF calendar.** - [ ] **Documentation of how to contribute, with increasing detail as the project matures.** - [ ] **Demonstrate contributor activity and recruitment.** ## Engineering Principles - [ ] **Document project goals and objectives that illustrate the project’s differentiation in the Cloud Native landscape as well as outlines how this project fulfills an outstanding need and/or solves a problem differently.** - [ ] **Document what the project does, and why it does it - including viable cloud native use cases.** - [ ] **Document and maintain a public roadmap or other forward looking planning document or tracking mechanism.** - [ ] **Roadmap change process is documented.** - [ ] **Document overview of project architecture and software design that demonstrates viable cloud native use cases, as part of the project's documentation.** - [ ] **Document the project's release process and guidelines publicly in a RELEASES.md or equivalent file that defines:** - [ ] Release expectations (scheduled or based on feature implementation) - [ ] Tagging as stable, unstable, and security related releases - [ ] Information on branch and tag strategies - [ ] Branch and platform support and length of support - [ ] Artifacts included in the release. - Additional information on topics such as LTS and edge releases are optional. Release expectations are a social contract between the project and its end users and hence changes to these should be well thought out, discussed, socialized and as necessary agreed upon by project leadership before getting rolled out. - [ ] **History of regular, quality releases.** ## Security Note: this section may be augemented by a joint-assessment performed by TAG Security. ### Suggested - [ ] **Achieving OpenSSF Best Practices silver or gold badge.** ### Required - [ ] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to report security issues.** - [ ] **Enforcing Access Control Rules to secure the code base against attacks (Example: two factor authentication enforcement, and/or use of ACL tools.)** - [ ] **Document assignment of security response roles and how reports are handled.** - [ ] **Document Security Self-Assessment.** - [ ] **Third Party Security Review.** - [ ] Moderate and low findings from the Third Party Security Review are planned/tracked for resolution as well as overall thematic findings, such as: improving project contribution guide providing a PR review guide to look for memory leaks and other vulnerabilities the project may be susceptible to by design or language choice ensuring adequate test coverage on all PRs. - [ ] **Achieve the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices passing badge.** ## Ecosystem ### Suggested N/A ### Required - [ ] **Publicly documented list of adopters, which may indicate their adoption level (dev/trialing, prod, etc.)** - [ ] **Used in appropriate capacity by at least 3 independent + indirect/direct adopters, (these are not required to be in the publicly documented list of adopters)** The project provided the TOC with a list of adopters for verification of use of the project at the level expected, i.e. production use for graduation, dev/test for incubation. - [ ] **TOC verification of adopters.** Refer to the Adoption portion of this document. - [ ] **Clearly documented integrations and/or compatibility with other CNCF projects as well as non-CNCF projects.** #### Adoption ##### Adopter 1 - $COMPANY/$INDUSTRY _If the Adopting organization needs to remain anonymous, stating the industry vertical is sufficient._ MONTH YEAR ##### Adopter 2 - $COMPANY/$INDUSTRY _If the Adopting organization needs to remain anonymous, stating the industry vertical is sufficient._ MONTH YEAR ##### Adopter 3 - $COMPANY/$INDUSTRY _If the Adopting organization needs to remain anonymous, stating the industry vertical is sufficient._ MONTH YEAR Projects moving from incubation to graduation are tracked here: https://github.com/orgs/cncf/projects/27/views/9 Once we've checked off all the above, we can fill out the [Graduation Proposal](https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/process/graduation-proposal-template.md) and submit a PR. Example of a current project's PR in consideration (Falco): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/956 and some that have been recently approved: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/952 https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1000

[microwavables]

Additional info from Emily Fox (CNCF TOC member): The second paragraph here for ordering and pick up from the queue: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/process/project_proposals.md#expectations

[microwavables]

@hone any update regarding security audit request?

[hone]

@natalieparellano and I just finished the OSTIF security questionnaire. We should hear back from them in ~2 weeks on finding us a team to work with for the security audit.

[hone]

I just met with Quarkslab (and OSTIF) who will be doing our security audit. The first step will be building out the threat model. They'll reach out to us by the end of the week on what they've come up with for us to confirm.

[microwavables]

I've edited the original issue above to reflect the new changes to the graduation application requirements, per the TOC updates: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/process/README.md