I've looked around for some existing guidelines around CLA requirements, and so far I've found this:
https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html#clas This relates eventually to the provenance of source code hosted at the ASF: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#provenance So basically, the general idea I've seen is that small, trivial changes do not require an ICLA, but anything non-trivial should request one in order to establish provenance of the code over time. Remember, safe, business-friendly licensing of all our software is the key point to address here, so anything we do here should align with that. Since trivial contributions are not usually covered by copyright, there's no need to establish more formalities around them. Larger ones would retain their own new copyright, and the ICLA is there to help ensure the contributions are made along the same rules as the ALv2. On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 03:06, Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It was pointed out that our contributing guide sets a higher bar than other > Apache projects by requiring an ICLA. > > Looking at some of the other successful Apache projects they do a better job > explaining how to contribute, and all the ways someone can be contributor, > and how to open a PR, testing and how reviewing works. > > Should we revise the guidelines and contributions doc? Is anyone else > interested in helping out on these docs? > > -r -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
