Alpha-Omega minor inconsistency

[david-a-wheeler]

We seem to have some minor inconsistencies regarding our description of Alpha-Omega (among other things).

This slide:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZQ7WjNH5fQL7qvpFN3jTFt-iQHqPpUc5of_azQc8iic/edit
has Alpha-Omega listed as an "associated project" reporting directly to the TAC.

https://github.com/ossf/tac lists Alpha-Omega as an "affiliated project", I think that's old terminology, and it should be an "associated project".

https://github.com/ossf/alpha-omega doesn't say anything, it probably should.

This isn't world-ending, but it'd be good to have consistent terminologies.

[di]

Based on my reading of #85, Alpha-Omega should be considered a SIF and not a "project", since "project" has a very specific definition in this context that A/O does not really fit.

[SecurityCRob]

I'm working with the Michaels to get this better documented and defined.

[sevansdell]

@SecurityCRob How's it going? How can I help?

[sevansdell]

@SecurityCRob Issue update please?

[sevansdell]

@SecurityCRob Issue update please?