-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 521
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Attribution Guidelines #1330
Closed
Closed
Attribution Guidelines #1330
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2c8dd42
Added TAG Attribution guidelines
eddie-knight 5ab62e6
typofix
eddie-knight 4a48645
Applying feedback
eddie-knight bb9001f
Applying feedback
eddie-knight 55fc24a
fixing link
eddie-knight 41c313a
fixing link
eddie-knight c3a104e
linting
eddie-knight File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ | ||
# TAG Attribution Guidelines | ||
|
||
[Attribution] is the act of ascribing a work to a particular author. | ||
|
||
The TAG may be attributed with authorship of a work following a robust | ||
community review and approval process. Depending on the document category, a | ||
work will require different review processes before attribution is possible. | ||
|
||
Below is a list of works categories, and what will enable it to be attributed | ||
as a TAG publication. | ||
|
||
1. Publications (whitepapers, etc) | ||
|
||
- The document must follow all guidelines, protocols, and processes outlined | ||
in the [publications] directory. | ||
|
||
1. Presentations (conference talks, webinars, etc) | ||
|
||
- The presentation must be made by a TAG Tech Lead or Chair | ||
- The presentation content must be pre-approved by a majority of TAG Leads | ||
- No significant concern has been left unaddressed by a TAG Tech Lead | ||
|
||
1. Blogs (On the TAG site or elsewhere) | ||
eddie-knight marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
- The Blog must be directly connected to an initiative such as a whitepaper | ||
or event. | ||
- If the blog contains any opinions, advice, or recommendations, it follows | ||
all guidelines, protocols, and processes outlined in the [publications] | ||
directory. | ||
|
||
## Personal Attribution | ||
|
||
A TAG Tech Lead, Chair, or Project Lead may use their title in any internal or | ||
external publication as they see fit. There is no restriction to this, but | ||
the following examples will aid in clarity to avoid mistaken attribution. | ||
|
||
### Attribution Qualifier | ||
|
||
It is preferable, but not required, that personally attributed works include | ||
a qualifying statement if the CNCF or the TAG is mentioned in the author byline | ||
or article content. | ||
|
||
> The author is a leader in CNCF's Technical Advisory Group for Security, | ||
but this work is the sole opinion of the author and does not represent | ||
any stance from CNCF or the TAG. | ||
|
||
### Good Examples | ||
|
||
These examples clearly delineate the author attribution from the author's role | ||
|
||
- R. Raccoon - Tech Lead, CNCF TAG Security | ||
- R. Raccoon (Tech Lead, CNCF TAG Security) | ||
eddie-knight marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
- R. Raccoon (CTO, TrashPanda Corp and Tech Lead, CNCF TAG Security) | ||
|
||
### Less Good Examples | ||
|
||
These examples leave room for misunderstanding whether the article was written | ||
or approved by the TAG. | ||
|
||
- R. Racoon - CNCF TAG Security | ||
- R. Racoon (CNCF TAG Security) | ||
- R. Racoon, CNCF TAG Security | ||
- R. Racoon, Tech Lead, CNCF TAG Security | ||
- R. Racoon, TrashPanda Corp and TAG Security | ||
- R. Racoon, TrashPanda Corp, TAG Security | ||
|
||
[Attribution]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribution | ||
[publications]: ../publications |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this mean that a presentation would have to be approved every time someone gives a shout out to TAG Security? For example in the lead-up to CloudNativeSecurityCon I gave several explanations of what the TAG does, etc, which I would not have been able to do if it required an approval process.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could modify the second point below to use a type of "lazy consensus" language, but I imagine that yes— we would want to have some reasonable ability for leads to ensure that content is up to date before it is presented to the public as representative of the group.
For example, if @sublimino does a presentation about the TAG (as he often does), we should have a process that he can easily follow to help him share the latest from the group.
But if @sublimino was doing a presentation about his experience in the TAG (not representing the group) then it wouldn't benefit from the additional support layer.