| Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Implementing CLAs |
Martin et al, Just in case you haven’t noticed, the root bug (many dependencies!) for this work is bug 401236[1]. I look forward to your comments and feedback. [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=401236 From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich Martin, Thanks for the comments.
Not yet. I'll do that tomorrow. It's a holiday today in Ontario. 2. 3. I like the brevity and simplicity of the 3 questions; compared to that, the CLA from the Netty example looks complex. What can we do to ensure that contributors who sign the CLA actually understand what they are signing and not just click-through it like we’ve become used to with all those typical software installers ? When completing the CLA, the contributor will have to click a radio button beside each of the three questions. That will make sure that they actually pay attention. The actual wording is going to be more complicated than the current three questions, because we have to cover future contributions, rather than the one-time scenario we have today. In addition, I would point out that this CLA has to meet with the approval of a great many lawyers. We obviously want to be as clear and concise as possible, but differ people can have different opinions about what that may be. The final wording will be approved by the EMO and the lawyers. 4. 5. What if a contributor messed up their git commit record somehow (eg typo in the name for signed-off-by). The automatic checks against the CLA on file would fail in that case; who would clean up the commit record and how ? And as a corollary, if a commit record can be cleaned up, how are we going to guarantee that the “signed-off-by” ID is actually correct and authentic ? I will have to defer to others on that one. |