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, 

...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
For corporate legal information go to: 

devel mailing list

Reply via email to