What it decides
- Rule
SPO-SITE-001- Applies to
sharepoint·site- Default severity
- medium
- Basis
- convention
On what authority
Microsoft does not require a minimum number of owners, does not warn about a single owner, and does not prevent a site from having one. This is our recommendation, and an organisation may reasonably decline it: a small tenant where the same administrator owns everything has a single point of failure that no per-site rule can fix, and adding a second nominal owner there would be paperwork rather than governance.
This basis carries no external source, and that is the type saying so: a convention is this product's own threshold rather than a vendor's, and attaching a page that does not state it would be worse than admitting authorship.
What it needs to decide
owners.count
Without these facts the rule answers unknown, which is not a pass and is not a failure: it is the rule saying the evidence could not settle the question.
Where the evidence comes from
owners: who administers one site · live-validated
What a pass does not establish
Two owners who are dormant, who have left, or who do not know they own the site satisfy this rule completely. The count is two and nobody is able to act. The rule measures the field, not the availability of a person.
- Where ownership is held by a group, the count depends on whether the collector expanded that group. If it did not, a site with one group owner reads as one owner. See the evidence schema for how expansion is recorded.
- This is a convention, not a Microsoft requirement. A tenant may have a documented reason to run single-owner sites, and this rule cannot see that reason.
Source
The rule as the Engine holds it, at the revision this page was generated from: 1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233.
Generated from capability-manifest/1.0.0 at1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233, contract1.0.0b6. Every fact on this page is the Engine's; this site publishes it and does not maintain it.