Skip to content

Conversation

dstebila
Copy link
Member

I've recently spoken with Thomas Bailleux @zadlg, and he needs to devote most of his time to his new company, so won't be able to continue on the OQS Technical Steering Committee for now. He's offered to step down, but says he is still eager to contribute to the security of OQS. Thanks very much, Thomas, for helping with OQS including OQS Provider over the past few years!

This PR moves Thomas to the list of past TSC members and removes him from the TSC team in the Github configuration; I've kept him on the other teams he's listed on (e.g., oqs-provider-committers) as that's a separate matter.

Once a majority (4 out of 7, including me as chair) has approved, it would be considered passed and I will merge it.

Unconditionally, changes to config.yaml must

  • be approved by 2 members of the OQS TSC
  • not violate permissions documented in GOVERNANCE.md files for sub projects where such files exist

The following goals apply to changes to the file config.yaml with exceptions possible, as long as the rationale for the exception is documented by comments in the file:

  • all sub projects should be treated identically wrt roles & responsibilities as per the detailed list below
  • teams/team designations are to be used wherever possible; using personal GH handles should only be used in team definitions
  • Admin changes to the file must be documented by comments as to the rationale of the change

All the following conditions hold for permissions set in config.yaml:

  • sub project maintainers have admin rights on the sub projects
  • OQS and sub project release managers have maintainer rights on the sub projects but can themselves set/reset branch protection rules limiting write access to sensitive branches
  • sub project committers have write rights on all branches of the sub projects but can request branch protection rules limiting this
  • sub project contributors (incl. code owners) have write rights on all branches except main on those sub projects
  • OQS and sub project triage actors have triage rights on all branches of the sub projects
  • OQS maintainers and LF admins have admin rights on the organization (e.g., org-wide secret management) as well as maintenance rights on the team configurations

@dstebila dstebila self-assigned this Sep 25, 2025
@dstebila dstebila requested a review from a team as a code owner September 25, 2025 02:15
Copy link

clowarden bot commented Sep 25, 2025

Validation succeeded

✅ The proposed configuration changes are valid!

Configuration changes

Directory

  • zadlg is no longer a member of team tsc

🔸 Please review the changes detected as they will be applied immediately once this PR is merged 🔸

Copy link
Member

@bhess bhess left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your contributions to OQS @zadlg !

Copy link
Member

@baentsch baentsch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this status update @dstebila @zadlg .

Thanks very much Thomas for all your work and thoughts in the past - it was a pleasure to work with you! As you also vote for this change (and simply have other priorities for which I wish you all the success in the world), I follow your lead to approve despite the following concern:

This change (after Spencer's departure) switches what started with about equal, 1:1 voting power between non-commercial and commercial entities in OQS to a 4:1 (or 2:1, if there is agreement to allow Douglas to cast votes) super-majority for commercial entities that I think warrants some questions:

In line with a usual FOSS goal that the "doers should decide" is it so that corporate contributors currently indeed provide 2 (or 4) times more code, community support and functionality than non-commercially oriented teams? What can be done to get there? Or what else can be done to bring back a fair balance between commercially-driven and research-driven contributions and voting rights? Or are these departures "merely" a sign of a project in terminal decline? Or is this (corporate majority control) a logical result and end-goal of the fully commercially-driven PQCA controlling OQS and thus has to be accepted and even welcomed (it may allow OQS to receive monetary support from PQCA as commercial issues now get a guaranteed super-majority)? Worthwhile a discussion at a next TSC meeting?

@dstebila dstebila merged commit 3ac9d69 into main Sep 25, 2025
3 checks passed
@dstebila dstebila deleted the ds-remove-thomas-from-tsc branch September 25, 2025 16:53
Copy link

clowarden bot commented Sep 25, 2025

Reconciliation completed

✅ The reconciliation completed successfully and all changes have been applied across the services!

Changes applied

Github

  • zadlg is no longer a member of team tsc

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants