Hi Rashik, Thanks for the detailed proposal and there is a chance that it will attract enough interest to be taken up an ASF Incubator podling. My view is that projects with one human committer are not a good fit for the Incubator. I have been involved with the Incubator for a few years, including mentoring a number of podlings. The podlings that do well invariably have a core team of committers. You need at least 3 PPMC members to vote on releases and adding extra PPMC members and committers. You need people to review changes. We have recently seen an uptick in new podlings and proposals and this increases pressure on the Incubator team to monitor them all. It would be my preference if you tried to build a community and maybe come back to us when there is a larger community and a history that we can review to show that the project has the team resources to manage the requirements imposed by the ASF Incubator PMC and the ASF generally.
Regards, PJ On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 at 05:30, Rashik Adhikari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to propose Quilzo for the Incubator, and I am looking for a > Champion and Mentors. The full draft is below. > > Quilzo is a content management system written in Go. Its defining property > is what it does not have: no query language over content, no executable > template language, and no plugin runtime. Those three are where CMS > vulnerabilities actually come from, and removing a capability removes the > whole class rather than the currently-known instances of it. > > Three things I think make it worth the Incubator's time, and one that may > make it not: > > 1. It has no dependencies at all. go.mod has no require block -- not > vendored, not pinned, none -- and CI fails the build if one appears. > For the ASF specifically that means the Category A/B/X review, the > LICENSE and NOTICE assembly, and the re-review on every dependency > bump are all empty and stay empty by policy. The single supply-chain > input is the Go toolchain. > > 2. Governance is the product rather than a feature of it. Quilzo's value > is that it can prove what it published, refuse what it should not > publish, and constrain what an automated agent may do -- enforced at a > chokepoint rather than documented. A foundation is a better custodian > of that than a company, where the incentive is eventually to make the > guarantees a paid tier. > > 3. It produces the artefacts regulated users now need continuously rather > than annually: OSCAL assessment results from a real posture scan > against 35 NIST SP 800-53 controls, a CycloneDX SBOM from the build, > and an audit export with an integrity envelope. > > And the thing that may sink it: there is one committer. Me. I know the > Incubator normally expects three or more, ideally across employers, and I > would rather say so in the first message than have it drawn out of me. I > am willing to spend time recruiting before any vote, and I would value > frank advice on whether to do that first or to enter with community > building as the incubation goal. > > On licensing. Quilzo is AGPL-3.0-or-later today. I understand AGPL is > Category X and that this is not something the Incubator could make an > exception for, so I am not asking it to: I will relicense to Apache-2.0, > without reservation, and file an SGA whenever a Champion asks for one. > The relicensing is clean -- one human contributor, a DCO rather than a > CLA, and no third-party code to reclassify. The draft explains why AGPL > was chosen and what dropping it costs. > > One more thing I would rather say than have found. Quilzo has been > developed with substantial LLM assistance, and the git history says so -- > 71 of 174 commits carry a Co-Authored-By trailer naming the model. I have > read the ASF's generative tooling guidance. No third-party material is > included (the zero-dependency rule is enforced by CI, so there is nothing > vendored to have come from anywhere), the work is mine to represent as my > own, and I reviewed and tested every line before merging it. I used > Co-Authored-By where the ASF asks for Generated-by, and I will switch to > the ASF's token. The draft sets this out in the IP section. > > It does not change the risk that matters. A project written quickly by one > person with a model is still a project with one person on it. > > I have tried to write the risks section as an honest assessment rather > than a pitch, including the fact that Apache Lenya was an ASF CMS that > retired to the Attic, and that Jackrabbit and Sling are adjacent projects > which made the opposite decision on the point that defines this one. > > Source: https://github.com/Quilzo/Quilzo > Manual: https://quilzo.github.io > Demo: https://quilzo.github.io/demo/ > > Grateful for any feedback, and particularly for anyone willing to > Champion it. > > Rashik Adhikari > > > QUILZO -- APACHE INCUBATOR PROPOSAL > ============================================================================ > > > LICENSING, FIRST, BECAUSE IT DECIDES EVERYTHING ELSE > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Quilzo is currently AGPL-3.0-or-later. The ASF classifies AGPL as Category X > <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html>: it cannot be included in an > ASF product in source or binary form, and every ASF project is released > under Apache-2.0. So this is not a licence the Incubator could make an > exception for, and this proposal does not ask it to. > > The project will relicense to Apache-2.0 on acceptance. That is offered > without reservation and it is clean to do: > > - Every commit in the repository was authored either by the proposer or by > Dependabot bumping a version string in a workflow file. There is one > human contributor and he is the sole copyright holder. That is a > property of the history rather than a count that goes stale: git log > --format='%ae' | sort -u returns two addresses, one of which is a bot. > - Contribution is under a DCO, not a CLA. No third party's copyright has > been aggregated, so nobody else's permission is needed and no > contributor-agreement archaeology is required. > - There are no dependencies at all -- go.mod has no require block -- so > there is no third-party licence to review, reclassify, or replace. The > usual hardest part of an IP clearance is empty here. > > An SGA can be filed as soon as a Champion asks for one. > > > Why it was AGPL, and why that reasoning does not survive contact with ASF > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The reasoning is worth stating rather than skipping, because it explains a > design choice that outlives the licence. > > Nobody distributes a CMS; they host it. A licence whose obligations trigger > on distribution would never trigger at all for this category of software, so > GPL-3.0 would have been decorative. AGPL was chosen for one specific reason: > if somebody runs a modified Quilzo as a service, the people using that > service can have the source of what is actually running. For a system whose > entire argument is "you can verify what was published", source availability > at the point of use was the licence that matched the architecture. > > That reasoning is coherent and it is also not the ASF's model, and the ASF's > model has an argument this one does not: permissive licensing is what allows > a governance foundation to be a neutral home rather than a party to a > compliance relationship. Given a choice between AGPL and an ASF community, > the community is worth more to this project than the reciprocity clause. The > verifiability the AGPL was protecting is a property of the design -- content > addressed by hash, publishing as a pointer move, an append-only audit chain > -- and none of it depends on the licence. > > One honest cost, stated because the Incubator will work it out anyway: > relicensing removes the obligation on a hosted fork to publish its changes. > If a vendor runs a modified Quilzo as a proprietary service, Apache-2.0 > permits it. That is a real loss and it is accepted. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ABSTRACT > -------- > > Quilzo is a content management system with no query language over content, > no executable template language, and no plugin runtime -- three capabilities > removed so that the vulnerability classes that depend on them cannot exist. > Content is immutable and addressed by the hash of its own bytes; publishing > moves a pointer. > > > PROPOSAL > -------- > > Quilzo manages structured content and publishes a website from it, with the > capabilities a CMS is expected to have: content types, media, taxonomies, > menus, declared queries over structured data, forms, workflow, multiple > languages, staged environments, scheduled publication, and an audit trail. > > It does them on a storage model borrowed from version control rather than > from a relational database, and that choice is the product rather than an > implementation detail. It is written in Go against the standard library > only. > > We propose to enter the Apache Incubator to build a governance structure and > a contributor community around it, and to relicense to Apache-2.0. > > > BACKGROUND > ---------- > > Content management systems are exploited in two recurring ways: a query an > attacker can influence, and a place where writing data means writing > something that later executes. WordPress's 2026 pre-auth RCE chained exactly > those two; Drupal's CVE-2026-9082 was the first on its own. The industry > response is patching, and patching is a response to instances rather than to > classes. > > Quilzo started in August 2026 from the position that those links can be > removed rather than hardened, and that they can only be removed at the level > of the storage model and the template language -- which is why it is a new > system rather than a hardening guide for an existing one. > > > RATIONALE > --------- > > Why this is worth a foundation's time, rather than a repository. > > Three reasons, in descending order of how unusual they are. > > 1. It has no dependencies, which is the ASF's own hard problem, absent. > > go.mod has no require block. Not vendored, not pinned -- none, with CI > failing the build if one appears. That cost a content-addressed merkle > store, a template language with a real parser, a CIDv1 encoder, an OIDC > client with PKCE, and Windows file locking via LockFileEx. Roughly 65,600 > lines of program with 34,500 lines of test across 1,229 test functions. > > For the ASF specifically this is not an aesthetic claim. Third-party licence > review -- Category A, B and X classification, LICENSE and NOTICE assembly, > re-review on every dependency bump -- is a standing cost on every podling > and a recurring source of release-blocking issues. Here that work is empty > and stays empty by policy. The single supply-chain input is the Go toolchain > itself, and go.mod carries a comment explaining why it is pinned to a floor > rather than left open. > > 2. Governance is the product, and the ASF is a governance foundation. > > Quilzo's differentiator is not that it manages content. It is that it can > prove what it published, refuse what it should not publish, and constrain > what an automated agent may do -- and that these are enforced rather than > documented. That is an unusually close fit with an organisation whose core > competence is governance, and an unusually poor fit with a venture-funded > company, where the incentive is eventually to make the guarantees a paid > tier. > > 3. It is infrastructure that regulated users need and cannot currently get. > > Discussed under Who this helps below. > > > INITIAL GOALS > ------------- > > 1. Relicense to Apache-2.0, file the SGA, and complete IP clearance. > 2. Move to ASF infrastructure and Apache-style governance; grow the > committer base beyond one person, which is the project's principal > risk. > 3. Cut a first Apache release. There is no 1.0 today; the release path is > already automated, reproducible, and produces an attested container > image. > 4. Publish a measured prompt-injection benchmark result (see AI, below), > so the project's central safety claim is evidence rather than > architecture. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT OTHER SYSTEMS LACK > --------------------------------------- > > > Immutable, content-addressed storage > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Every object is named by the SHA-256 of its own bytes. Nothing is > overwritten: a change writes a new object, and the old one is still there. A > commit names a tree; an environment is a pointer at a commit. > > Publishing therefore moves a pointer. Nothing is copied, re-serialised or > rebuilt on the way to production, so "the bytes production serves are the > bytes staging served" is an exact statement rather than a property of a > deterministic build. Rollback is another pointer move. History is free. > > What others lack: Git-based CMSs share the version-control model but not the > content addressing, so their publish is a build and their rollback is a > rebuild. Database-backed CMSs have neither. > > > A template language that cannot execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Four constructs -- a value, an if, a for, and an explicit raw -- with no > function calls, no arithmetic, no comparisons, no field access on host > values, and no way to add a fifth. Values may pass through a closed list of > sixteen filters whose arguments are literals and can never name another > value; that line is what keeps a filter set from becoming an expression > language. > > What others lack: Go's own text/template calls methods, which is precisely > the capability a template language must not have. Twig, Liquid and Smarty > each have sandbox escapes in their CVE histories, because a sandbox around > an evaluator is a smaller claim than having no evaluator. > > > No query language over content > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Views are declared queries with typed parameters, a field allowlist and a > cost budget, resolved before rendering. A page names the listings it embeds > and the template receives data, never a callable. There is no string an > attacker can influence that becomes a query. > > > Publishing that refuses rather than warns > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A warning nobody reads is a feature nobody has. Publication stops on an > inaccessible page (checked by rendering it, not by inspecting the content), > an unmarked AI-generated page, a menu pointing at nothing, content violating > its own type, a claim the business cannot substantiate, or an image whose > licence has lapsed. Overriding is possible, explicit, and lands in the > commit metadata with a name attached. > > What others lack: every CMS has a linter somebody turned off. > > > One set of rules across three interfaces > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A browser interface, a command line, and an agent interface over MCP. Every > capability exists in all three or carries a written reason why not -- and a > test walks the source and fails on the gap. This project shipped a rule the > terminal honoured and the browser did not, more than once; the test exists > because the intention did not work. > > > Approvals that are signatures over content > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > An approval names a content hash. Change one character and the hash changes > and the approval no longer applies to anything -- not because a rule detects > the edit, but because it is an approval of different bytes. > > What others lack: nearly every review system attaches approval to a request > rather than to what was in it, so an edit after approval carries the > approval forward. It is a hole most people never notice they have. > > > Concurrent editing without locks > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A write declares the commit it was based on; a write whose base has moved is > refused. In a content-addressed store that is exact rather than a heuristic > about timestamps. A three-way merge then resolves the collisions that are > not real ones -- two people on different pages, or on different fields of > one page -- and never resolves a genuine disagreement by picking a side. > Locks exist, are advisory, expire on their own, and have no break-lock > button. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > HOW QUILZO USES AI, AND WHY IT IS DIFFERENT > ------------------------------------------- > > Most CMSs shipping AI mean one of two things: a text box that calls a model > and pastes the answer into a field, or an agent handed the operator's > credentials and asked to behave. The second is the interesting case and the > dangerous one. > > The problem is not that models are careless. A model reads content, and > content is written by people -- commenters, contributors, whoever filled in > a form. Anything a model reads may have been written by an attacker. Prompt > injection is not a defect to be trained away; it is what happens when > instructions and data share a channel. > > So the model never holds the authority. An agent's manifest is the whole of > what it may do: which capabilities, over which content, on what budget, at > what autonomy level -- enforced at one chokepoint every operation passes > through. A completely hijacked agent can still only do what it declared > before anyone talked to it. The model chooses from that list; it cannot > invent an entry. This follows CaMeL (arXiv:2503.18813 > <https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18813>), where the research settled: enforce > policy outside the model with a deterministic gate. > > Two consequences that fall out rather than being bolted on: > > - Reading stored content taints the run, as a fact that follows the data. > Anything an agent produced after reading input somebody else could have > written needs a person before it goes live, and the system knows which > runs those are. > - A model cannot approve its own work. Approvals must come from principals > and self-approval is forbidden; a model is not a principal. The rule > that stops an editor rubber-stamping herself is the rule that stops a > model shipping unreviewed. > > There is also a governance layer for agent protocols. Governance Gaps in > Agent Protocols (arXiv:2606.31498 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31498>) > identifies six things MCP, A2A and ACP cannot express: permissions, > delegation with accountability, budgets, provenance, revocation, and who > answers for what an agent did. Quilzo's agent card fills all six, published > as an A2A governance extension, so another system can read what this one > will allow before it asks. > > What is honestly missing: this has never been run against AgentDojo. That > benchmark is what would turn "designed to resist injection" into a measured > number, and until it is run the claim is architectural. It is tracked as > issue #33 and it is an explicit initial goal above. No CMS has published > such a figure; doing so is a contribution to the field and not only to this > project. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > WHO THIS HELPS > -------------- > > > Government and regulated organisations > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > FedRAMP 20x ended the era of the compliance PDF: since CR26 was finalised in > June 2026, packages carry machine-readable evidence, at least 70% of it > automated, with OSCAL required from 30 September 2026. That suits a system > that knows its own configuration better than one that must be described. > > - posture scan reads the actual deployment, and every rule names the NIST > SP 800-53 controls it bears on and its OWASP category. 35 controls have > an automated check. > - OSCAL 1.2.3 assessment results are generated from that scan -- the > output of an assessment, which is what the format is for. > - A CycloneDX 1.6 SBOM derived from the build, and a crypto inventory with > post-quantum positions. > - Audit export as OCSF, CEF or JSON Lines with an integrity envelope, so a > receiving system can tell whether events were removed. Identifiers are > pseudonymised unless explicitly requested, and requesting them is > recorded. > - GDPR Article 20 by export tested through a round trip; Article 17 by > keeping form submissions deliberately outside the append-only store, > because an append-only store cannot erase. > - EU AI Act Article 50 by refusing to publish unmarked AI-generated > content. > > For air-gapped or classified deployment: one static binary with no > dependency graph to review, a distroless container with no shell or package > manager, no telemetry, no outbound request an operator did not configure, > and the entire state in one directory. > > This is not an authorisation. There is no ATO and no third-party assessment. > These are the artefacts an assessment needs, produced continuously. > > > Companies > ~~~~~~~~~ > > The commercial case is the same property seen from a different angle: a CMS > sits at the highest-value point in a web infrastructure, and every > transitive dependency in it is somebody else's release process inside yours. > A zero- dependency, single-binary system with no plugin runtime is a much > shorter conversation with a security team than a Node application with a > dependency tree in the hundreds. > > Beyond that: exports that are tested by round trip in three formats plus an > RO-Crate research deposit, so leaving is a file copy rather than a project; > machine-readable crawl terms that grant search, AI training and AI > summarisation separately; and a /catalogue.json with schema.org Product and > Offer emitted from the same row the page rendered, for agentic discovery -- > with a deliberate refusal to ever hold a payment credential. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > CURRENT STATUS > -------------- > > Working, tested, and used to build its own demonstration site. Not yet 1.0, > and no backports to earlier tags. 65 packages; 1,229 test functions; CI runs > tests, govulncheck, gofmt and CodeQL on every pull request, with CodeQL a > required check on main. > > > Meritocracy > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The bar for commit access is written down in GOVERNANCE.md -- three merged > pull requests of substance -- specifically so nobody has to guess when they > qualify. Adopting Apache-style meritocracy is a formalisation of an intent > already documented, not a change of direction. > > > Community > ~~~~~~~~~ > > Effectively none yet, and this is the proposal's weakest point. It is stated > plainly rather than dressed up. There are three issues scoped and labelled > for a first contribution, each naming the file and the trap to avoid. > > > Core Developers > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > One: the sole copyright holder and proposer. See Homogenous Developers under > Known Risks. > > > Alignment > ~~~~~~~~~ > > The ASF has been in this space before, and the honest answer is more > interesting than "no overlap". > > Apache Jackrabbit (TLP) is a JCR content repository, and Apache Sling (TLP) > builds content-centric applications on top of one. Both are adjacent to > Quilzo and both made the opposite decision on the point that defines it: JCR > specifies a query language over content -- XPath, and SQL-2 -- and that > capability is precisely the one Quilzo removes. Quilzo is not a JCR > implementation and should not become one; its store is a content-addressed > merkle graph with declared queries resolved before rendering. There is no > dependency in either direction and adding one would breach the zero- > dependency rule. > > So the relationship is coexistence rather than competition or duplication: > Jackrabbit and Sling serve applications that need a queryable repository, > and Quilzo serves ones that need to prove what they published. A user > choosing between them is choosing between those two properties, and both are > legitimate. > > Apache Lenya was a Java/XML CMS and is retired to the Attic. That precedent > deserves to be raised by the proposer rather than by the Incubator. Lenya's > retirement is a reasonable prior that ASF CMS projects do not sustain a > community, and this proposal cannot refute it with evidence -- it has a > smaller community than Lenya ever did. What it can offer is a different > shape: Lenya was a large Java application with a substantial dependency > surface and a plugin ecosystem, and Quilzo is a single binary with no > dependencies and deliberately no plugin ecosystem, which makes it materially > cheaper to maintain per contributor. Whether that is enough is a fair > question for the Incubator to press on. > > There is also affinity with the ASF's own tooling preferences -- no > dependencies, reproducible builds, an integrity-verifiable audit log -- and > the project already emits CycloneDX and OSCAL, formats other ASF projects > consume. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > KNOWN RISKS > ----------- > > > Homogenous developers, and reliance on a single developer > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The principal risk, and the reason this proposal may not be accepted as it > stands. One contributor, in one place. The Incubator normally expects three > or more initial committers, ideally across organisations, and this proposal > cannot show that today. > > It is stated first rather than buried, because a proposal that hides it > wastes a Champion's time. Three honest options, and the proposer's > preference is the first: > > 1. Recruit two to three committers before any vote. The proposal is > stronger and the Incubator's core objection disappears. This is the > proposer's preference, and it means the gap between this thread and a > vote is measured in months rather than weeks. > 2. Enter with one committer and treat community-building as the incubation > goal. Podlings have done this; many have also retired. > 3. Withdraw and seek a different home -- the Commons Conservancy, or the > Software Freedom Conservancy -- where a single-maintainer project is > less anomalous. > > Orphaned products > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The proposer intends to continue development regardless of the outcome, and > has already put the release path outside any single machine or account. The > mitigation for orphaning is the same as for the risk above: more committers. > There is no external funding and therefore no funding to withdraw. > > > Inexperience with open source > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Real. The proposer has not previously run an open-source project at scale, > has not shepherded a foundation release, and would rely heavily on Mentors > for the release process, IP clearance and the ASF voting conventions. The > project has, however, been developed in public with a DCO, published > security policy, written governance, and disclosure-first handling of its > own defects. > > > Reliance on salaried developers > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > There are none. Quilzo is written in personal time, no employer funds or > directs it, and there is no corporate sponsor to withdraw. That removes the > "sponsor leaves, project dies" risk entirely and concentrates the bus-factor > risk, which is item one. > > > Relationships with other Apache products > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > No dependency in either direction, and none is planned: taking a dependency > on an ASF project would breach Quilzo's own zero-dependency rule, which is a > tension worth naming now rather than discovering during incubation. It means > Quilzo cannot participate in the usual pattern of ASF projects building on > one another, and a Mentor may reasonably regard that as isolating. > > The overlap that does exist is with Jackrabbit and Sling, discussed under > Alignment. It is a difference of design rather than a duplication of > function, but the Incubator should test that judgement rather than take it. > > > An excessive fascination with the Apache brand > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The attraction is specifically governance, and the reason is a design > constraint rather than marketing. A system whose value is that its > guarantees are enforced rather than promised needs a home where the > guarantees cannot be quietly made a paid tier. That is a structural argument > for a foundation, and the ASF is the foundation whose competence is exactly > this. > > If the Incubator's judgement is that the project is not ready -- and the > single-committer objection is a fair reason to reach that judgement -- the > proposer would rather hear it than receive a probationary yes. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > DOCUMENTATION > ------------- > > - Source: <https://github.com/Quilzo/Quilzo> > - Manual: <https://quilzo.github.io> > - SECURITY.md, GOVERNANCE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md in-repo > - Live demonstration site, built with the tool: > <https://quilzo.github.io/demo/> > > INITIAL SOURCE > -------------- > > https://github.com/Quilzo/Quilzo -- active since 14 August 2026. Single > copyright holder; DCO sign-off throughout. > > > SOURCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SUBMISSION PLAN > ------------------------------------------------ > > The sole copyright holder will file a Software Grant Agreement and relicense > to Apache-2.0. No CLA has ever been used and no third-party copyright has > been aggregated, so there is no contributor to trace. No third-party code is > vendored or bundled. > > > AI assistance, disclosed > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quilzo has been developed with substantial LLM assistance, and the git > history says so: 71 of 174 commits carry a Co-Authored-By: trailer naming > the model. Anyone reading the log will see it, and anyone dividing 100,000 > lines by eight days will ask, so it is stated here rather than left to be > discovered. > > The relevant facts, against the ASF's generative tooling guidance > <https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html>: > > - The tool's terms permit it. Output may be licensed under Apache-2.0. > - No third-party material is included. The zero-dependency rule is > enforced by CI, so there is no vendored code to have come from anywhere; > every line is either written for this project or from the Go standard > library. > - The work is represented as the proposer's own, reviewed and tested by > him before merge, which is the representation an ICLA asks for. > - The trailer is wrong for Apache and will be changed. The ASF asks for a > Generated-by: token in commit messages; this repository used Co- > Authored-By:, which discloses the same fact under a different name. New > commits will use the ASF's token from the point a Champion asks for it, > and the existing history is left as it stands rather than rewritten, > because rewriting a public history to change how disclosure is spelled > would be the wrong instinct entirely. > > Two things this does not excuse, and the proposer does not claim otherwise. > It does not make the review burden somebody else's -- every line is his to > defend. And it does not answer the community question: a project written > quickly by one person with a model is still a project with one person on it, > which is the first risk above and is not diminished by how fast the code > arrived. > > > EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES > --------------------- > > None. go.mod contains no require block, and CI fails the build if one > appears. The only input is the Go toolchain (Go 1.27, BSD-3-Clause, Category > A). Build and test dependencies are likewise the toolchain alone. > > > CRYPTOGRAPHY > ------------ > > Quilzo uses cryptography and would require an ASF export-control > notification. All of it is from the Go standard library; none is implemented > in-project. > > Primitive Used for > SHA-256 content addressing, the audit chain, the merkle log > SHA-384 / SHA-512 OIDC ID-token signature verification > HMAC-SHA256 audit-log pseudonymisation, webhook signatures > AES-256-GCM encrypting objects at rest, wrapping data keys > ECDSA / RSA verifying OIDC signatures; provenance signing > crypto/rand token and identifier generation > crypto/subtle constant-time comparison > > quilzo compliance crypto prints this inventory with post-quantum positions. > > > REQUIRED RESOURCES > ------------------ > > - Mailing lists: dev@, private@, commits@, users@ > - Git: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/quilzo.git > - Issue tracking: GitHub Issues (already in use) > - Other: a website, and CI on GitHub Actions as today > > INITIAL COMMITTERS > ------------------ > > - Rashik Adhikari (rsh1k) -- sole author and copyright holder > > Additional committers to be recruited before a vote is called. See Known > Risks. > > > AFFILIATIONS > ------------ > > - Rashik Adhikari -- no affiliation relevant to this project. Quilzo is > personal work: no employer funds it, no employer directs it, and no > employer has any claim on it. > > SPONSORS > -------- > > > Champion > ~~~~~~~~ > > Not yet identified, and finding one is a large part of why this is being > posted. If you have mentored a podling before -- particularly a Go project, > or one where the argument is architectural rather than about scale -- the > proposer would welcome a conversation, including one that concludes this is > not ready. > > > Nominated Mentors > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > None yet. > > > Sponsoring Entity > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The Apache Incubator. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
