Update the plan for Section 3.0 - initial cleanup.

[u269c]

Cleaned up the text, reformatted the content, and propose:

• move 3.2 (training) out of Section 3.0
• reworded some explanations to be cleaner

Signed-off-by: Francis Perron [email protected]

[u269c]

re: 3.2 training doc

@u269c : if we have training / docs, we should make sure it's SIRT-facing, internally.
@SecurityCRob : we should not get rid of docs, lets' move it to the Vuln Disclosure WG.
@ran-dall : they want to make a helpdesk in the securing-software-repo sig, this might be something they care about ...? They want to approach the TAC with a project to employ folks here.

• TODO(@u269c ): file a bug to move this, for @SecurityCRob to do (Project idea: guide for maintainers on handling incidents wg-vulnerability-disclosures#113)
• @u269c : re-add training in there, but make it internally scoped (0cfed63)

[u269c]

re: tracking for the work

@u269c : how do we track the work in the Sections?
@SecurityCRob : we'll need to think about this... not for today.

• TODO(@SecurityCRob ): talk with @SecurityCRob and Dave Russo to see about a joint approach with the Education SIG. (Project Tracking: figure out how we want to track progress across all of the WG/SIG work wg-vulnerability-disclosures#114)

@ran-dall : on the blogpost that started the Ossf, Google mentioned a SIRT that would help secure projects, with a list of tasks... do we want to add this list in our scope?
@SecurityCRob : we should be careful about scope here, and review that list later, in the Section 1 to understand the problem space. We are an independent group, with a self-elected body of work, so we can have differences here.
@u269c : you are correct, this list is part of the equation, but we need Section 1 to define this for us to execute on.
@ran-dall : ACKnowledge.