Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Oct 12, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> I hope this will be a temporary freeze, unless legal folks will have some 
> other concerns. This is a substantial change since you modify exiting terms 
> and conditions (as I read it).

Not sure what you mean: the license under which Open MPI is distributed is 
still the same.

What terms and conditions are you referring to, specifically?

-- 
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

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

>
> 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.
>

I hope this will be a temporary freeze, unless legal folks will have some
other concerns. This is a substantial change since you modify exiting terms
and conditions (as I read it). This is not an administrative change that
modifies the way the CLA is submitted or singed.
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Pavel Shamis  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

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[r...@open-mpi.org]

According to the existing bylaws, only those designated as “members” have 
voting rights when it comes to such administrative matters. The CLA solely 
dealt with the right to contribute code - the membership “level” was a separate 
matter.

In the revised bylaws, this tiered membership model has been abandoned. Members 
are still the only ones with voting rights, and membership is still something 
you have to apply for, be nominated, and voted in by existing members. However, 
the other designated community levels have been eliminated.


> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:
> 
> Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the 
> existing CLA. If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have 
> any say, then this conversation is pointless. 
> 
> -Pasha
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, r...@open-mpi.org  
> > wrote:
> The OMPI community members have had their respective legal offices review the 
> changes, but we decided to provide notice and get input from others prior to 
> the formal vote of acceptance. Once approved, there will no longer be a CLA 
> at all. The only requirement for contribution will be the sign-off.
> 
> Rationale: the open source world has evolved considerably since we first 
> initiated the project. The sign-off method has become the most commonly used 
> one for accepting contributions. The CLA was intended primarily to protect 
> the contributor, not the project, as it ensured that the contributor had 
> discussed their contribution with their employer prior to submitting it.
> 
> This approach puts more responsibility on the contributor. It doesn’t impact 
> the project very much - trying to “relicense” OMPI would be just as 
> problematic today as under the revised bylaws, and quite frankly is something 
> we would never envision attempting.
> 
> The frequency with which OMPI is receiving pull requests from non-members is 
> the driving force here. We have traditionally accepted such contributions “if 
> they are small”, but that is too arbitrary. We either have to reject all such 
> contributions, or move to a model that allows them. We collectively decided 
> to pursue the latter approach, and hence the change to the bylaws.
> 
> Just to be clear: only official OMPI members have a vote in this matter. If 
> you are not a “member” (e.g., you are a “contributor” status), then this is 
> only informational. We respect and want your input, but you don’t actually 
> have a vote on this matter.
> 
> HTH
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Pavel Shamis > > wrote:
>> 
>> Well, at least on my side I will not be able to provide the answer without 
>> legal involvement. 
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet 
>> > wrote:
>> My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be
>> "Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?"
>> If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits, 
>> regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Gilles
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis > > wrote:
>> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code 
>> contribution.
>> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the 
>> existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like 
>> the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing 
>> CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing 
>> member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.
>> 
>> -Pasha
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca > 
>> wrote:
>> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to 
>> sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed 
>> patch.
>> 
>>   George.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis > 
>> wrote:
>> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen > 
>> wrote:
>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The primary 
>> motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the proposal 
>> (link below).
>>  
>> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  
>> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Admistrative-rules 
>> 
>> 
>> New Bylaws proposal: 
>> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws 
>> 
>>  
>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any 

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the
existing CLA. If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have
any say, then this conversation is pointless.

-Pasha

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, r...@open-mpi.org  wrote:

> The OMPI community members have had their respective legal offices review
> the changes, but we decided to provide notice and get input from others
> prior to the formal vote of acceptance. Once approved, there will no longer
> be a CLA at all. The only requirement for contribution will be the sign-off.
>
> Rationale: the open source world has evolved considerably since we first
> initiated the project. The sign-off method has become the most commonly
> used one for accepting contributions. The CLA was intended primarily to
> protect the contributor, not the project, as it ensured that the
> contributor had discussed their contribution with their employer prior to
> submitting it.
>
> This approach puts more responsibility on the contributor. It doesn’t
> impact the project very much - trying to “relicense” OMPI would be just as
> problematic today as under the revised bylaws, and quite frankly is
> something we would never envision attempting.
>
> The frequency with which OMPI is receiving pull requests from non-members
> is the driving force here. We have traditionally accepted such
> contributions “if they are small”, but that is too arbitrary. We either
> have to reject all such contributions, or move to a model that allows them.
> We collectively decided to pursue the latter approach, and hence the change
> to the bylaws.
>
> Just to be clear: only official OMPI members have a vote in this matter.
> If you are not a “member” (e.g., you are a “contributor” status), then this
> is only informational. We respect and want your input, but you don’t
> actually have a vote on this matter.
>
> HTH
> Ralph
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my side I will not be able to provide the answer without
> legal involvement.
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <
> gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be
>> "Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?"
>> If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits,
>> regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code
>>> contribution.
>>> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the
>>> existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like
>>> the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing
>>> CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing
>>> member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.
>>>
>>> -Pasha
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have
 to sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a
 signed patch.

   George.


 On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis 
 wrote:

> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor
> agreement ?
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen  > wrote:
>
>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
>> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
>> proposal (link below).
>>
>> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>>
>> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>>
>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
>> comments or concerns.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>


 ___
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.open-mpi.org
 https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> 

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[r...@open-mpi.org]

The OMPI community members have had their respective legal offices review the 
changes, but we decided to provide notice and get input from others prior to 
the formal vote of acceptance. Once approved, there will no longer be a CLA at 
all. The only requirement for contribution will be the sign-off.

Rationale: the open source world has evolved considerably since we first 
initiated the project. The sign-off method has become the most commonly used 
one for accepting contributions. The CLA was intended primarily to protect the 
contributor, not the project, as it ensured that the contributor had discussed 
their contribution with their employer prior to submitting it.

This approach puts more responsibility on the contributor. It doesn’t impact 
the project very much - trying to “relicense” OMPI would be just as problematic 
today as under the revised bylaws, and quite frankly is something we would 
never envision attempting.

The frequency with which OMPI is receiving pull requests from non-members is 
the driving force here. We have traditionally accepted such contributions “if 
they are small”, but that is too arbitrary. We either have to reject all such 
contributions, or move to a model that allows them. We collectively decided to 
pursue the latter approach, and hence the change to the bylaws.

Just to be clear: only official OMPI members have a vote in this matter. If you 
are not a “member” (e.g., you are a “contributor” status), then this is only 
informational. We respect and want your input, but you don’t actually have a 
vote on this matter.

HTH
Ralph


> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:
> 
> Well, at least on my side I will not be able to provide the answer without 
> legal involvement. 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet 
> > wrote:
> My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be
> "Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?"
> If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits, 
> regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gilles
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis  > wrote:
> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code 
> contribution.
> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the existing 
> CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like the new 
> model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing CLA ? If 
> not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing member would 
> have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.
> 
> -Pasha
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca > 
> wrote:
> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to sign 
> the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed patch.
> 
>   George.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis > 
> wrote:
> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen > 
> wrote:
> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The primary 
> motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the proposal 
> (link below).
>  
> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  
> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Admistrative-rules 
> 
> 
> New Bylaws proposal: 
> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws 
> 
>  
> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any comments 
> or concerns.
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org <>
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org <>
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org <>
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org 
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> 

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

Well, at least on my side I will not be able to provide the answer without
legal involvement.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <
gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be
> "Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?"
> If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits,
> regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis 
> wrote:
>
>> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code
>> contribution.
>> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the
>> existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like
>> the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing
>> CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing
>> member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.
>>
>> -Pasha
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to
>>> sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed
>>> patch.
>>>
>>>   George.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement
 ?

 On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen 
 wrote:

> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
> proposal (link below).
>
> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>
> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>
> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
> comments or concerns.
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>


 ___
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.open-mpi.org
 https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>
>>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Gilles Gouaillardet]

With the new model, contributions come from individuals (e.g. not
organizations).
That means it is up to any contributor to check he/she is allowed to
contribute and how with his/her employer.
/* I am just summarizing a lengthy discussion on the devel-core ML */

Cheers,

Gilles

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis 
wrote:

> There might be no more contributor agreement at all...
>> (See the discussion on the devel-core ML)
>>
>
> My concern (based on experience) that this may prevent some organization
> from contribution. Obviously people would have to take this back to legal,
> which may lead to a "freeze" in terms of contribution.
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Gilles Gouaillardet]

My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be
"Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?"
If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits,
regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA

Cheers,

Gilles

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis 
wrote:

> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code
> contribution.
> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the
> existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like
> the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing
> CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing
> member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.
>
> -Pasha
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca  > wrote:
>
>> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to
>> sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed
>> patch.
>>
>>   George.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis > > wrote:
>>
>>> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen >> > wrote:
>>>
 We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
 primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
 proposal (link below).

 Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
 pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules

 New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
 pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws

 Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
 comments or concerns.


 ___
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.open-mpi.org
 
 https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>>> 
>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> 
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

>
> There might be no more contributor agreement at all...
> (See the discussion on the devel-core ML)
>

My concern (based on experience) that this may prevent some organization
from contribution. Obviously people would have to take this back to legal,
which may lead to a "freeze" in terms of contribution.
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[cbergstrom]

  The term signed patch can mean multiple things, but I'm strongly in favor of any non-trivial code still requiring a contributor agreement. I can give some examples of why long term it makes sense if needed.Short version - you never know when you'll be forced into a license change and no project is immune from this.The actual CLA which is used is another problem and professionals at SFLC may be willing to help pro bono. If interested I may be able to provide non-lawyer det‎ails since I've worked on this 1st hand multiple times.CheersFrom: George BosilcaSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 21:39To: Open MPI DevelopersReply To: Open MPI DevelopersSubject: Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discussYes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed patch.  George.On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen  wrote:We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the proposal (link below).
 
Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
 
Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any comments or concerns.

___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code
contribution.
b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the
existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like
the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing
CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing
member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review.

-Pasha

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca  wrote:

> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to
> sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed
> patch.
>
>   George.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis 
> wrote:
>
>> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
>>> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
>>> proposal (link below).
>>>
>>> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>>> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>>>
>>> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>>> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>>>
>>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
>>> comments or concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Gilles Gouaillardet]

FWIW

There might be no more contributor agreement at all...
(See the discussion on the devel-core ML)

It might be just impossible to have two methods of contributing
(contributor agreement and signed-off patches)
IANAL and cannot provide any insight on why nor why not

Cheers,

Gilles

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, George Bosilca  wrote:

> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to
> sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed
> patch.
>
>   George.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis  > wrote:
>
>> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen > > wrote:
>>
>>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
>>> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
>>> proposal (link below).
>>>
>>> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>>> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>>>
>>> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>>> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>>>
>>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
>>> comments or concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>>> 
>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> 
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[George Bosilca]

Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to
sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed
patch.

  George.


On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis 
wrote:

> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen 
> wrote:
>
>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
>> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
>> proposal (link below).
>>
>> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>>
>> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om
>> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>>
>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
>> comments or concerns.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[Pavel Shamis]

Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen 
wrote:

> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The
> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the
> proposal (link below).
>
> Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/
> ompi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
>
> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/
> ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
>
> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any
> comments or concerns.
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.open-mpi.org
> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@lists.open-mpi.org
https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel