Name a role that owns open source risk, describe how decisions are escalated, and say how often the arrangement is reviewed. A customer is looking for a clear point of accountability, not a long org chart.
Why governance questions appear
After inventory, policy and patching, the follow up is "who is responsible?" If the answer is "everyone", the practical answer is nobody. Written ownership is also what makes the rest of the answers believable, because processes without owners decay.
A simple ownership model
| Activity | Typical owner role |
|---|---|
| Policy text and review | Head of security or engineering |
| Inventory generation | Platform or build engineering |
| Advisory triage | Security engineering or the service owner |
| License review | Legal with engineering input |
| Upgrades and fixes | Service owning teams |
| Exceptions | A named approver with an expiry date |
Roles scale better than names because people move. Keep a current list anyway for contacts.
Escalation paths
Describe what happens when teams disagree or a fix is not possible. A common design is: service owner proposes, security reviews, and a senior approver accepts the residual risk in writing with a date. That produces the exception record customers later ask to see.
NIST SP 800-218 includes defining roles and responsibilities across the software development life cycle as part of preparing the organization (the PO group), and the open source practices sit on top of that foundation.
Review rhythm
State how often you review: policy yearly, exceptions quarterly, metrics monthly, for example. Use rhythms you actually run. If the first review has not happened yet, say it is scheduled.
What customers read between the lines
- A named role and a review date signal maturity.
- "The security team handles it" signals that engineering may not.
- Metrics that tie to the owner, such as open exceptions and age of findings, signal follow through.
Reply template
Open source risk is owned by our head of engineering, with security engineering responsible for advisory triage and legal for license review. Exceptions require a named approver and an expiry date. The policy is reviewed annually and exceptions are reviewed quarterly.
Swap in your real roles. If a role does not exist, do not invent it.
For the broader picture, see audit readiness for open source usage policies.
Small team version
If you are a small company, ownership might be one engineering lead who handles policy, triage and exceptions, with the founder or a senior engineer approving risk acceptance. That is fine. Say so plainly, state the review date and describe what happens if that person is away. A short, honest description of a small setup reads better than an org chart that does not exist.
As you grow, split the roles in the table above and move the exception approval to someone independent of the team that benefits from the exception.
Quick check
Is a security committee enough as an owner?
Committees decide, but a person or role must be accountable for follow through.
Do small teams need this?
Yes, in lighter form. One named person and a yearly review date satisfy most questions.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
