Security: make peoples' phab names obvious; recommend phab as the place for nominations

[george.burgess.iv]

Summary

This commit contains two mildly separate concepts; happy to split them out if folks prefer.

First, sending out reviews for things like this is a bit of a complicated endeavor, since the reviewer list is relatively long, and I generally rely on prior CLs in this area to find an authoritative list. Life's quite a bit easier if phab usernames are readily available on the doc. I was unable to locate accounts for the folks who have [] next to their names. If it's intended that some people on the list don't have phab accounts, I'm happy to leave those blank (though slightly concerned that these peoples' voices might not be getting heard on Phabricator code reviews).

Second, it seems to me that, at the moment, Phabricator makes the most sense for membership changes (incl. security group nominations). My reasoning for this is detailed in the diff, and to some extent in comment #1 of this bug. This change adds prose to recommend the use of Phabricator for nominations as a result. Happy to consider alternatives/etc if others have different opinions (especially given the other change in this patch).

[dim]

LGTM.

[pietroalbini]

I checked with Steve Klabnik (the other Rust contact) and he just created his Phabricator account: steveklabnik. Could you add his account to the list?

Running nominations over Phabricator LGTM.

[george.burgess.iv]

Added steveklabnik to the doc as requested -- thanks!

[steveklabnik]

Thanks!

[probinson]

Yes, this all makes sense to me.
I see that Josh Eads (the other Sony member) does not have a Phab account, but he's leaving and will be replaced by another member of our Security team; I'm on the hook to write a patch for that. I'll let the new guy know that it will be convenient to have a Phab account.

[probinson]

One question: Does it have to be a Phabricator account specifically? IIRC, Phab can authenticate with a github account, so if someone has a github account that should work here, correct?

[steveklabnik]

In D106917#2910326, @probinson wrote:

One question: Does it have to be a Phabricator account specifically? IIRC, Phab can authenticate with a github account, so if someone has a github account that should work here, correct?

I created my account this way; while you auth with GitHub, it creates a Phab account that it's linked to.

[george.burgess.iv]

Thanks for the reviews and commentary!

Looks like everyone's happy with this. I'll plan to land it as-is tomorrow, so if anyone would like revisions, please speak up soon. :)

I created my account this way; while you auth with GitHub, it creates a Phab account that it's linked to.

+1; I use Google for authentication, myself. As long as a patch author can paste the name into phab's reviewers list and have phab pick the right person, I think all's good.

[mattdr]

Many thanks for getting this spelled out.

llvm/docs/Security.rst

 
 
 Group Composition
 =================
 
 Security Group Members
 ----------------------
 
-The members of the group represent a wide cross-section of the community, and meet the criteria for inclusion below.
+The members of the group represent a wide cross-section of the community, and meet the criteria for inclusion below. The list is in the format `* ${full_name} (${affiliation}) [${phabricator_username}]`. If a phabricator username for an individual isn't available, the brackets will be empty.
 
-* Ahmed Bougacha (Apple)
-* Artur Pilipenko (Azul Systems Inc)
-* Dimitry Andric (individual; FreeBSD)
-* Ed Maste (individual; FreeBSD)
-* George Burgess IV (Google)
-* Josh Eads (Sony)
-* Kate McInnes (Apple)
-* Kristof Beyls (ARM)
-* Matthew Riley (Google)
-* Oliver Hunt (Apple)
-* Paul Robinson (Sony)
-* Peter Smith (ARM)
-* Pietro Albini (individual; Rust)
-* Serge Guelton (RedHat)
-* Shayne Hiet-Block (Microsoft)
-* Steve Klabnik (Oxide Computer Company; Rust)
+* Ahmed Bougacha (Apple) [ab]
+* Artur Pilipenko (Azul Systems Inc) [apilipenko]
+* Dimitry Andric (individual; FreeBSD) [dim]
+* Ed Maste (individual; FreeBSD) [emaste]
+* George Burgess IV (Google) [george.burgess.iv]
+* Josh Eads (Sony) []
+* Kate McInnes (Apple) []
+* Kristof Beyls (ARM) [kristof.beyls]
+* Matthew Riley (Google) [mattdr]
+* Oliver Hunt (Apple) [ojhunt]
+* Paul Robinson (Sony) [probinson]
+* Peter Smith (ARM) [peter.smith]
+* Pietro Albini (individual; Rust) [pietroalbini]
+* Serge Guelton (RedHat) [serge-sans-paille]
+* Shayne Hiet-Block (Microsoft) [Shayne]
+* Steve Klabnik (Oxide Computer Company; Rust) [steveklabnik]
 
 Criteria
 --------
 
 * Nominees for LLVM Security Group membership should fall in one of these groups:
 
   - Individual contributors:
 
* Additionally, the following are necessary but not sufficient criteria for membership in the LLVM Security Group:
   - When nominated as a vendor contact, their position with that vendor remains the same as when originally nominated.
   - Nominees are trusted by existing Security Group members to keep communications embargoed while still active.
 
 Nomination process
 ------------------
 
 Anyone who feels they meet these criteria can nominate themselves, or may be nominated by a third party such as an existing LLVM Security Group member. The nomination should state whether the nominee is nominated as an individual, researcher, or as a vendor contact. It should clearly describe the grounds for nomination.
 
-*FUTURE*: where nomination occurs (mailing list, GitHub, etc), can be decided later. See `Discussion Medium`_ below.
+For the moment, nominations are generally proposed, discussed, and voted on using Phabricator. An `example nomination is available here`_. The use of Phabricator helps keep membership discussions open, transparent, and easily accessible to LLVM developers in many ways. If, for any reason, a fully-world-readable nomination seems inappropriate, you may `open a new issue`_, and a discussion can be had about the best way to approach nomination, given the constraints that individuals are under.
 
+Our recommended method of nomination may change as our `Discussion Medium`_ story evolves over time.
 
 Choosing new members
 --------------------
 
 If a nomination for LLVM Security Group membership is supported by a majority of existing LLVM Security Group members, then it carries within five business days unless an existing member of the Security Group objects. If an objection is raised, the LLVM Security Group members should discuss the matter and try to come to consensus; failing this, the nomination will succeed only by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the LLVM Security Group.
 
 Accepting membership
 --------------------

 
 
 .. _CVE process: https://cve.mitre.org
 .. _open a new issue: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/entry
 .. _chromium issue tracker: https://crbug.com
 .. _GitHub security: https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-maintainer-security-advisories
 .. _llvm-dev mailing list: https://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
 .. _MITRE: https://cve.mitre.org
+.. _example nomination is available here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99232