Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 2:52:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > I'm concerned with some of these threads I'm seeing w/r/t Freemarker. > While I'm not a mentor on the project, I've been a user for a while and > have been curious about Freemarker at Apache. > > I would not cite a CouchDB process from their old wiki. First, its not > clear if this is the most recent version (it mentions a migration to the > new wiki and an external website which are red flags to me).
(It's not in their new Wiki... But then let's ignore it. There's still LEGA-156.) > Second, CouchDB has a much different model and contributor set than > other projects do. > > I would cite a legal JIRA, and as far as I know everyone was already > following this guide. > > I would also cite our legal guidelines > https://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas in > particular where it makes sense to expect an ICLA on file. In general, ASF > expects ICLAs for large enough contributions. The size is at the > discretion of the PMC receiving the contribution. We do require ICLAs for > committers to join a project (to receive an account, to receive write > access) and many projects simply follow that model - you need an ICLA at > that point in time. I think what I'm proposing is pretty much the same, only it tells more concrete details (which I believe is good for Committers who has to merge stuff; or at least I find the ASF documentations pretty scattered and at some places superficial). What am I missing? As of https://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas, it says that: The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit via email an Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). I doesn't talk about exceptions where an ICLA is not needed. But, today I saw a thread on members@ where someone said ICLA is not needed for mere contributors, only for Committers, and that led me to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156, where Legal says no ICLA is needed for GitHub pull requests, etc. > I would encourage Freemarker to keep things simple, especially since the > total number of contributors is at 13. But that's exactly why I wanted this. It is simpler for contributors if they can just do a PR, without any paper work. What do you mean by FM becoming process heavy? Which other threads do you find concerning? > John > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:48 AM Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Currently we strictly require a CLA (by which I mean an ICLA or CCLA) >> for any contributions to be accepted, as >> http://freemarker.org/contribute.html says. >> >> This practice was inherited from the pre-ASF times, when without >> lawyers available, we tried to be on the safe side. But based on >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156 and >> https://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/CommitPolicy and some other mails we >> can make things simpler for contributors (not to be confused with >> committers). >> >> So I propose that we say that: >> >> - People sending contributions with GitHub pull requests need no CLA. >> But, before merging, we must check that: >> - The mail about the pull request was received to >> [email protected], so that there's >> a record of this even in the ASF infrastructure. >> - The files in the pull request has the standard ASF copyright >> headers, or no copyright headers in files where that's normally >> not present. There's no other conflicting copyright information >> included either (like a such LICENSE file). >> - People sending in patches as attachment to FreeMarker Jira issues >> need no CLA. But, before merging, we must check that: >> - It's clear from the wording of the issue that the user wishes to >> contribute (as opposed to, for example, just showing an example). >> - Copyright headers are in order, just as with GitHub pull request. >> >> If someone contributes a bigger feature, yet they isn't a committer, >> we might still ask a CLA though. But that can be dealt with when such >> thing happens. >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> >> -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
