>________________________________________ >From: Jeremy Stanley [fu...@yuggoth.org] >Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:51 PM > >On 2014-09-15 17:25:48 +0000 (+0000), Sandy Walsh wrote: >> Hmm, my understanding was that branches are not accepted without a >> signed ICLA. Is that not the default case? >[...] > >Yes, but you specifically mentioned desiring enforcement of the >CCLA, not the ICLA. We do have Gerrit configured to require a >recorded assent to the OpenStack Project Individual Contributor >License Agreement (and by extension an OpenStack Foundation >membership under the current implementation) for projects which >request such enforcement, but we have no way to enforce an OpenStack >Project Corporate Contributor License Agreement from the >individual's employer nor an entry for them in Schedule A of that >document. Also, if OpenStack itself decides at a future date to drop >this enforcement for official projects, the Infrastructure Team will >without a doubt cease any and all support for that feature (even for >unofficial projects). >--
Gotcha ... thanks. I did some more digging. It seems the real issue is pain the github eula causes vs. the pleasure the openstack CLA gives. So, sorry for the red herring. The upshot of the whole thing is other groups may want to bring our project into openstack-proper sooner than later. And, getting visibility of the community in stackalytics would be nice as well. Stackforge, here we come! (thanks again guys) -S _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
