Re: Clojure CA over email thread on clojure-dev
The discussion on the clojure-dev list is not about *if* CAs will be accepted electronically, but *how*. Stuart Halloway requested help finding examples of the processes that other organizations have developed for receiving contributor agreements. In particular, he wanted to know if some large open-source organization has already done the appropriate legal research. We already know the paper CA process is a pain. We're trying to make it better. -S -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Clojure CA over email thread on clojure-dev
I think I understand what Michael mean by bias, am I the only one with a CA to also understand it ? :-) Let's try again: the root problem is not about having to send CAs via paper, pidgeon or electronically. It is how to build a process so that it does not get in the way of as many people willing to contribute as possible, while maintaining guarantees for Rich and Clojure/core/dev ( legal guarantees, ease of management guarantees, etc.). So to me, both parties should be involved in the process. Why wouldn't you get feedback from the primary people that the new disposition will target, and which by definition are not yet subscribed to clojure-dev ? Sooner or later, the solution will have to work for these people, not to work hypothetically for people in clojure-dev should they need to re-submit their CA :-p Just saying ... 2012/10/31 Stuart Sierra the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com The discussion on the clojure-dev list is not about *if* CAs will be accepted electronically, but *how*. Stuart Halloway requested help finding examples of the processes that other organizations have developed for receiving contributor agreements. In particular, he wanted to know if some large open-source organization has already done the appropriate legal research. We already know the paper CA process is a pain. We're trying to make it better. -S -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Clojure CA over email thread on clojure-dev
The concept of selection bias is only applicable when you are trying to get a representative sample of a population. I don't think the idea of the discussion is to go by majority vote. It is to find a process that meets the criteria decided upon by the Clojure/core members. I'm not one of them, but that seems reasonable to me. For example, if the process ends up becoming: Print out a copy of the paper CA, sign it, then fax or scan email the signed paper document. Then that seems like it should enable more people to submit a signed CA more cheaply from more places in the world than before, and might meet the legal criteria that the Clojure/core team wants to preserve (whatever that might be). I'm not saying that is what the process will become, but it is one among many possibilities. Andy On Oct 30, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Michael Klishin wrote: It was brought to my attention that there is a Clojure CA over email thread going on clojure-dev: https://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev/browse_thread/thread/e81484f0eaa76277 Because folks who have a problem with the current paper CA process are least likely to be on that list (that requires you to mail a paper CA in before you can join), I am posting this here. Clojure/core et al: please consider starting important conversations around how Clojure contribution works on this mailing list, not on clojure-dev. Because, selection bias. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Clojure CA over email thread on clojure-dev
2012/10/31 Andy Fingerhut andy.finger...@gmail.com I don't think the idea of the discussion is to go by majority vote It's not about making decisions by majority vote, Andy. It is about making sure many members of the community can *participate* or even simple be aware of important discussions. Most people don't follow clojure-dev because you can't subscribe to it the usual way. Discussing the issue of the contribution process being an unnecessary pain in a small group of people who have already gone through the process does not make any sense to me. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
Re: Clojure CA over email thread on clojure-dev
On Oct 30, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Michael Klishin wrote: 2012/10/31 Andy Fingerhut andy.finger...@gmail.com I don't think the idea of the discussion is to go by majority vote It's not about making decisions by majority vote, Andy. It is about making sure many members of the community can *participate* or even simple be aware of important discussions. Most people don't follow clojure-dev because you can't subscribe to it the usual way. Discussing the issue of the contribution process being an unnecessary pain in a small group of people who have already gone through the process does not make any sense to me. The discussion may have arisen because the contribution process is a pain for many, but that is not what it is _about_. It is hopefully more productive than that. It is to try to find a process that is less of a pain and is acceptable to Clojure/core. I should have said in my previous message, but feel free to suggest all the ideas you want for alternate processes. If one of them is considered better than all of the suggestions made so far, and/or you are willing to hire a lawyer to help legally vet a new process, I think your voice would be sampled with an extremely heavy bias :-) Andy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
