1 files changed, 124 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitlab/issue_templates/Sec Architectural Council Proposal.md b/.gitlab/issue_templates/Sec Architectural Council Proposal.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..bdf3f395670
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitlab/issue_templates/Sec Architectural Council Proposal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Sec Architectural Council Proposal
+
+- [ ] I have read the [Sec Architectural Council](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/#architectural-council-slack-s_sec-architectural-council) handbook entry.
+- [ ] I have read the [Engineering Architecture](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/architecture) page.
+- [ ] A DRI has already been assigned in the [Reviewed by](#reviewed-by) section of this issue based the above guidance.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+- [Scope](#scope)
+- [Out of scope](#out-of-scope)
+- [In scope](#in-scope)
+- [Reviewed by](#reviewed-by)
+- [SLO](#slo)
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+Review the proposal process here: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/#architectural-council-slack-s_sec-architectural-council 
+
+TL;DR you want to ask and discuss the following to arrive at a proposed solution:
+
+1. What is the issue at hand and what is the preferred action?
+2. What are the potential solutions and their associated pros/cons?
+3. What approach was decided and why?
+-->
+
+### What is the issue at hand?
+
+### What is the preferred action?
+
+### What are the potential solutions?
+
+<!------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+| Define a few headings inside of the proposal to go over your solution.       |
+| If you have more than one solution creating comment threads and summarizing  |
+| conversations in the issue description description could be easier to follow |
+| for folks.                                                                   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
+<!-- StartSolution -->
+
+#### Solution A
+
+<!--
+-->
+
+##### Solution A Pros
+
+<!--
+-->
+
+##### Solution A Cons
+
+<!--
+-->
+
+<!-- EndSolution -->
+
+### What approach was decided and why?
+
+<!--
+-->
+
+### Scope
+
+Use the checkboxes below to determine whether your is in scope for the Sec Architectural Council.
+
+#### Out of scope
+
+If any of the following apply then this issue is out of scope for the Sec Architectural Council.
+  - [ ] Does not involve architectural decisions
+  - [ ] Is after-the-fact
+
+#### In scope
+
+If any of the following apply then a proposal *should* be made:
+  - [ ] Has a broad impact within Sec
+
+If any of the following apply then you may opt-in to submitting a proposal to the Sec Architectural Council:
+  - [ ] Is not already covered by architecture guidelines/handbook
+  - [ ] Is a new unit of work
+  - [ ] Is strictly Secure
+  - [ ] Involves architectural decisions
+
+Once opted-in in some cases you may find that you:
+  - [ ] Could not come to an agreement (escalation)
+
+In which case you may opt-out closing this proposal if there is no broad impact within of Sec. If doing so please close the issue with a comment summarizing of your decision given you will follow standard architecture guidelines.
+
+## Reviewed by
+
+Assigned DRI: `@dri`
+
+I am asking The following Sec Architectural Council [Team Representatives][] to review the proposal outline in this issue:
+  - [ ] @alan representing the [Security Policies](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/govern/security-policies/) team
+  - [ ] @cam_swords representing the [Dynamic Analysis](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/secure/dynamic-analysis/) team
+  - [ ] @fcatteau or @adamcohen representing the [Composition Analysis](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/secure/composition-analysis/) team
+  - [ ] @idawson representing the [Vulnerability Research](secure/vulnerability-research/) team
+  - [ ] @julianthome representing the [Vulnerability Research](secure/vulnerability-research/) team
+  - [ ] @minac representing the [Threat Insights Backend](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/govern/threat-insights/) team
+  - [ ] @svedova representing the [Threat Insights Frontend](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/govern/threat-insights/) team
+  - [ ] @theoretick representing the [Static Analysis](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/secure/static-analysis/) team
+- [ ] @sashi_kumar representing the [Security Policies](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/govern/security-policies) team
+- [ ] @huzaifaiftikhar1 representing the [Compliance](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/govern/compliance) team
+<!-- Please update the following quick action in case of changes to the representatives list above. -->
+/assign @alan @cam_swords @fcatteau @idawson @julianthome @minac @svedova @sashi_kumar @huzaifaiftikhar1
+
+## SLO
+
+While the Sec Architectural Council has a Service Level Objective of 2-business days our Team Representatives are spread out globally so it may take longer than 48 hours in some cases for all parties to review your proposal.
+
+Please update this issue's Due Date accordingly when you:
+  * Create a proposal after Wednesday 17:00 Australian Eastern Time/Japan Time.
+  * Create a proposal over the weekend (e.g. before Monday 09:00 Mountain Time/Pacific Time).
+
+---
+
+[Proposal](#proposal)|[Scope](#scope)|[Out of scope](#out-of-scope)|[In scope](#in-scope)|[Reviewed by](#reviewed-by)|[SLO](#slo)
+
+[Team Representatives]: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/sec/#team-representatives
+
+<!-- Due Date for meeting our 2 day SLO. -->
+/due in 2 days
+/label ~"group::threat insights" ~"devops::govern" ~section::sec