Thanks Matt. One of the improvements I thought I’d make is to explain exactly this: when a cla is required and when we can accept improvements to documentation, typos, minors fixes etc. without.
-r > On Jul 13, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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>
