> If it is at all possible, I would prefer to start where we left off last time: > > https://whimsy.apache.org/test/icla/invite
Here are some specific issues I have with the demo: 1. The email address on the icla needs to come from the user not the pmc. 2. The Full name on the user form needs to show Prefix GivenName FamilyName Suffix (easy). 3. I'm still dubious about the acceptability of filling a form having any legal weight. Is there a way to ask the user for their gpg credentials and sign the generated form? 4. Is there a way for the tool to verify that the link refers to a [RESULT][VOTE] email? 5. The invitation email sent to the user should come from the canonical committer invite (easy). 6. There is no need for "full name" on the pmc invite form. The user will fill this field. The name as known by the pmc is just fine (easy). > From previous discussions, there still was substantial interest in > supporting unsolicited ICLAs; such ICLAs can still be processed by > scanning and sending. Perhaps the template ICLA can be updated to > remove the preferred user id field? No one has been deterred by the preferred user id field, and at least for the foreseeable future we should retain it on the form. Even if the automated system is completely functional and totally exceeds expectations it will take years for all pmcs to get on board (personal experience). Craig > On Sep 23, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Perhaps during ATO we can hack on the ICLA process. There was an attempt a >> couple of years ago but it stalled. >> >> 1. It is time consuming for committers to print, sign, scan, and email the >> form. Not every committer has legible handwriting and it can be a challenge >> to read the forms. Digital forms are much better to handle. >> >> 2. PMCs don't always follow the guidelines at >> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html with the effect that when the >> prospective committer files the ICLA, one or more of the following are >> missing or wrong: >> >> committer id >> project >> [VOTE][RESULT] >> >> If there is a failure here, it is time consuming to sort who does what, how, >> and when. New committers get a bad impression of Apache when there is a >> delay in processing their new account. >> >> 3. Last name first name are still issues. What is Kim Jung Un's first name? >> >> 4. Email addresses on the form that differ from the sender's address are a >> challenge. They need to be entered manually. >> >> I envision a process whereby the PMC invites a candidate to fill an online >> form, which generates a digital document, signed by gpg, and which sends >> mail to verify the email address. When the email address is verified, >> secretary gets mail to review the filed document which is then processed as >> today but with nothing to do but verify the document and file it. Secretary >> hates typing. >> >> I remain leery of processes that allow users to "agree to the terms and >> conditions of a document that you might choose to read" and then grant >> commit privileges. Provenance is still a key legal issue for me. > > >> Craig L Russell >> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation >> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo > > - Sam Ruby Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
