Add SSP metadata system-poc-technical role

[DimitriZhurkin]

Committer Notes

I'm not sure about this system-poc-technical role. I couldn't find in anywhere in documentation.
I found <responsible-party role-id="system-poc-technical">, but not <role id="system-poc-technical">.

All Submissions:

• Have you selected the correct base branch per Contributing guidance?
• Have you set "Allow edits and access to secrets by maintainers"?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Have you squashed any non-relevant commits and commit messages? [instructions]
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• If applicable, have all FedRAMP Documents Related to OSCAL Adoption affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.?
• If applicable, does this PR reference the issue it addresses and explain how it addresses the issue?

By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.

[DimitriZhurkin]

To add, I found <role id="system-poc-technical"> in rev 4.

[aj-stein-gsa]

I have consulted with @DimitriZhurkin on this PR and I too do not have a clear understanding of whether stakeholders, internal to FR or in the public, need or even just want this data. The legacy Rev 4 PDF documentation discusses the need, but without any explanation. I will finalize a review after I hear back from some stakeholders to adjust this PR to WARNING (if wanted, not needed), merge with ERROR classification if necessary, but more realistically drop it if neither pending the expected feedback on this. For the latter I will just close it and won't merge.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Still need to follow up with review team staff internally. Will post an update later today, tomorrow in the worst case.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Confirmed this is good with internal review teams as a necessary requirement and should be an earily fast error. Let's hold this until we merge the document updates in GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#57 though.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Woops left comment not just approval. Let's hold for GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#57 though.

[aj-stein-gsa]

Per discussion with internal staff on the documentation PR associated with this effort, but we will no longer require this roles be added in the present and future requirements for FedRAMP OSCAL SSPs. See this comment and cross-referenced in GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#60 (review). I am closing this PR. @DimitriZhurkin, you can make this constraint in the tracker and GitHub issues as WONTFIX.