What
Ways-of-Working/Repository-Standard.md defines a required-files table every
repository in the ecosystem must carry. Live-checking MSXOrg/docs against its
own table (via glob, in the repo root and .github/) shows this repository is
missing:
LICENSE
SECURITY.md
SUPPORT.md
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
.github/CODEOWNERS
.github/pull_request_template.md
.github/release.yml
(CONTRIBUTING.md was the same kind of gap and is fixed in a companion PR —
this issue is scoped to the remainder.)
Why this is an issue, not a PR
Each of these files requires a real decision rather than boilerplate:
LICENSE — which license applies to this content (docs vs. code license may
differ).
SECURITY.md — a real private-vulnerability-reporting contact/process.
SUPPORT.md — where users should actually ask for help.
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md — which code of conduct variant to adopt.
.github/CODEOWNERS — who the actual owners/reviewers are.
.github/pull_request_template.md — should match the PR Manager-style title
format already described in Ways-of-Working/PR-Format.md.
.github/release.yml — release-note categories, which should reflect this
repo's own commit/PR conventions.
Per this repo's own main directive, small problems get fixed directly; this
one needs owner decisions first, so it's tracked here instead.
Suggested next step
Decide the content for each file (owner input needed for LICENSE, SECURITY
contact, and CODEOWNERS in particular), then add them in one or a few small
PRs, each following the existing Repository-Standard.md guidance.
What
Ways-of-Working/Repository-Standard.mddefines a required-files table everyrepository in the ecosystem must carry. Live-checking MSXOrg/docs against its
own table (via glob, in the repo root and
.github/) shows this repository ismissing:
LICENSESECURITY.mdSUPPORT.mdCODE_OF_CONDUCT.md.github/CODEOWNERS.github/pull_request_template.md.github/release.yml(
CONTRIBUTING.mdwas the same kind of gap and is fixed in a companion PR —this issue is scoped to the remainder.)
Why this is an issue, not a PR
Each of these files requires a real decision rather than boilerplate:
LICENSE— which license applies to this content (docs vs. code license maydiffer).
SECURITY.md— a real private-vulnerability-reporting contact/process.SUPPORT.md— where users should actually ask for help.CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md— which code of conduct variant to adopt..github/CODEOWNERS— who the actual owners/reviewers are..github/pull_request_template.md— should match the PR Manager-style titleformat already described in
Ways-of-Working/PR-Format.md..github/release.yml— release-note categories, which should reflect thisrepo's own commit/PR conventions.
Per this repo's own main directive, small problems get fixed directly; this
one needs owner decisions first, so it's tracked here instead.
Suggested next step
Decide the content for each file (owner input needed for LICENSE, SECURITY
contact, and CODEOWNERS in particular), then add them in one or a few small
PRs, each following the existing
Repository-Standard.mdguidance.