Hi Jarek, > On May 9, 2021, at 12:43 AM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > 1. Very much so. In Airflow we defined some criteria for becoming > committers and we separated out "code" and "community" contributions to > make it clear. > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/COMMITTERS.rst#code-contribution > Also what we made clear there that there are no "code/community" > contributors. You can do (and best if you do) both :).
I have to confess that many years ago I was also one of the code-centric folks who thought that developer == code contributor. I've changed my mind over the years to my current contributor == contributor model. > > 2) I think this is a dangerous path to take. I think one of the important > aspects of Apache projects is how easy and friction-less it is to become a > contributor. And I want to preserve this, and encourage it. > Signing an ICLA can be very easily abused by "owners" of the > software to make it not really and truly open-source in spirit. So let's see how to really make this a positive thing and not a negative. > > And while I agree Apache ICLA Is "fine", there are a lot of people who > treat any attempt to ask them to sign ICLA with default "no" or "i am not > going to read all those legal-speak" or "probably they want to trick me > into something". And for a good reason, because in many cases those ICLAs > might actually have some "interesting" clauses. > > I think if we ask people before they are invited to become committers to > sign the ICLA, this goes against this "frictionless" approach and it > immediately raises many questions: > > * what is the criteria deciding when we ask ? > * what happens if the contributor refuses? > * what do we answer if the contributor asks why we need it? I'm afraid I didn't make my suggestion clear enough. I'm proposing that any PMC member can review contributions and write an email to the contributor thanking them for their contributions and suggesting that they may want to submit an ICLA "to clarify the intellectual property license granted with Contributions". No nagging, just thanks for your efforts, and if you choose, submit an ICLA. Each PMC can establish its own criteria for sending this one email. Sustained contributions over a one month period might be one such criterion. > > I think the current approach where ICLA MUST be signed in order to become a > committer is great. With great powers come great responsibilities, and it > makes perfect sense that the ICLA should be signed then. I see no reason > why we should make the "committer" approval simpler. It brings no benefits > other than a couple of days delay and IMHO, inviting a committer is a thing > that SHOULD look serious and should be involving additional action from the > new committer-to-do. This makes sure that the new committer is aware about > the new powers/responsibilities coming with it. > > Side comment: If some projects have a very high bar to become committers, > maybe they should lower the bar rather than ask for ICLA from their > contributors ? I'm not going there. PMCs have their own criteria for committers. It's up to the PMCs to figure this one out. Craig > > J. > > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 2:58 AM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Looking at How it Works, I think it needs an update to reflect current >> thinking on community. >> >> 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#developers >> >> I believe there is consensus that contributors are not only developers >> with their hands on the code, but: >> people who ask and answer questions on the user and dev lists; >> people who find bugs and report them, with or without writing test cases; >> people who document the projects, including web and "hard copy" documents; >> people who help organize meetups, both in real life and online. >> >> So perhaps we could add a section on "contributors" that covers the other >> categories of non-developer contributors? >> >> 2. I believe that we should ask contributors for an ICLA long before they >> are invited to become committers. >> >> Once a contributor has made several non-trivial contributions to a >> project, I believe that the project should ask them to file an ICLA if they >> have not already done so. This will have these potential benefits: >> >> It will be much easier to make them committers; all it will take is for >> the PMC to hold a successful vote and as soon as they are invited and >> accept, the PMC can simply request their account. >> >> It will give the PMC incentive to communicate with their contributors >> about the value the contributors bring to the projects. Our increasing use >> of GitHub for development makes this a straightforward exercise. Each PMC >> will have their own criteria for asking for an ICLA, which doubtless will >> be less stringent than committership. >> >> It will clarify the intellectual property issues (provenance) associated >> with the contributions. Some projects have a very high bar for >> committership and all of the contributions prior to formal offers of >> committership are assumed to be given under the terms of the Apache >> License, but we have no formal understanding of this. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig L Russell >> c...@apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> >> > > -- > +48 660 796 129 Craig L Russell c...@apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
