On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Pavel Shamis <pasharesea...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the > existing CLA.
Sure, that's to be expected. I did the same (so did others). > If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have any say, then > this conversation is pointless. No, it's not pointless. Ralph mentioned that non-Members don't have a vote, but that doesn't mean that feedback is ignored. We posted here publicly specifically to get feedback. So far, in core discussions there haven't arisen any reasons to *not* move to a signed-off-by model (not a "signed commit" model, which, as Chris B. mentioned, is ambiguous / can have multiple meanings). Hence, we figured it was time to raise the issue to the larger community and see if anyone else could think of a reason to not do this. You mentioned that such a change will block contributions. Did you mean only temporarily, while individual Contributor/Member organization legal departments are reviewing the new terms? If so, that one-time "cost" may be acceptable, since the goal of the new terms are designed to put us in a better place, long-term. ...or did you mean something else? If it helps when discussing with your legal department: as mentioned on https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws, the new "signed-off-by commits mean that you agree to ..." model was co-opted from the Linux kernel contribution model (as well as many other open source projects). We didn't invent this, but are rather trying to a) be current with other well-known open source project methodologies, and b) lower the bar for acceptable contributions. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
