Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Colin Clark]

+1. I think it makes sense to adopt CLA Assistant, and it seems like it will 
make our workflow much smoother. 

Colin

> On May 3, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Justin Obara  wrote:
> 
> It’s been a while since the last e-mail discussing potential CLA services for 
> Fluid repos. Based on the feedback we’ve received so far, I’m putting forward 
> the following proposal.
> 
> Proposal
> ===
> 
> I propose that we start using CLA-Assistant  to 
> manage our CLAs and link it to all of the fluid-project 
>  and fluid-lab 
>  repos. We should also write up some 
> documentation about setting up new repos that includes the process for adding 
> CLA-Assistant to it.

___
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocad.ca
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Justin Obara]

Hello,

It’s been a while since the last e-mail discussing potential CLA services
for Fluid repos. Based on the feedback we’ve received so far, I’m putting
forward the following proposal.

Proposal
===

I propose that we start using CLA-Assistant <https://cla-assistant.io> to
manage our CLAs and link it to all of the fluid-project
<https://github.com/fluid-project> and fluid-lab
<https://github.com/fluid-lab> repos. We should also write up some
documentation about setting up new repos that includes the process for
adding CLA-Assistant to it.

Why not CLAHub? Mostly this is related to the project activity that Gio
described in his response; CLAHub hasn’t been updated in over a year.

Why not cla-bot? cla-bot actually looks like a decent project and is easy
to setup. The problem is that it doesn’t help our use case much. We would
still have to manage the signing and collection of CLAs manually and then
either update a config file in every repo or write our own service to
report the status to cla-bot.

If I’ve made any errors in my above “why not” statements, please let me
know. Also I am welcome to counter proposals and further discussion.

Thanks
Justin




On April 11, 2018 at 10:36:45 AM, Justin Obara (obara.jus...@gmail.com)
wrote:

Hello,

I’ve added a cla-bot test repo now and have provided my initial summary of
it, similar to what I did for cla-assistant and clahub.

Thanks
Justin

cla-bot

cla-bot <https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/> is a GitHub application
for automating CLAs. It is open source and licensed unert MIT.

https://github.com/ColinEberhardt/cla-bot
Process to setup

   - One of our repo admins would go to the app page
   https://github.com/apps/cla-bot and install it
   - It can be added to an entire organization or per repo.
   - Configuration is handled through a .clabot file in each repo (
   https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/#configuration-options )
   - Need to either add contributors to the .clabot config file or updated
   a service on our end that returns

Process for a contributor

You can test by submitting a PR to https://github.com/jobara/clahub-testRepo

   - contributor submits a PR
   - cla-bot checks if the contributor has signed a CLA. It will indicate
   on the check if it passes or not.
   - If the check fails, the contributor is e-mailed a message about
   signing the CLA

Pros

   - Easy to install
   - Can setup for the entire organization or per repo

Cons

   - need to add a .clabot file to each repo
   - need to either manually update the contributors list in each .clabot
   file or setup a service that can handle the look up
   - need to manually handle distribution and collection of CLAs. Probably
   the best we could do is provide a link to or the contents of the CLA in the
   message that is e-mailed to the contributor. But we’d still need to
   manually ensure that it was returned and update the .clabot files or our
   own verification service for the check to pass.
   - only two contributors to cla-bot so far, but it’s a new project



On April 11, 2018 at 5:12:44 AM, Tony Atkins (t...@raisingthefloor.org)
wrote:

Hi, Avtar:

I took at look at their docs and presence on GitHub.  It looks well done,
and they seem responsive, but there are exactly two committers.  All
projects had to start somewhere, this might simply mean that they're doing
something new and better than other groups and it's just early days, but
it's something I would keep in mind once we get down to the ease of use,
features, etc.  and are narrowing down to a final candidate.

Cheers,


Tony

On 10 April 2018 at 20:46, Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca> wrote:

> Do people have any mild, medium, or strong feelings about this project?
> https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/
>
> From the project's page:
>
> * The approved contributor list can be maintained in various ways
> including JSON files or a webhook
> * Provides a fully-hosted solution, you don't have to maintain your own
> bit installation
>
> Avtar
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tirloni, Giovanni
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:37 PM
> To: Justin Obara <obara.jus...@gmail.com>; Bates, Simon <sba...@ocadu.ca>
> Cc: Fluid Work <fluid-w...@fluidproject.org>; Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca>;
> Harnum, Alan <ahar...@ocadu.ca>
> Subject: Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
>
> Hello,
>
> On one hand, cla-assistant introduces a new database for us (MongoDB). On
> the other, clahub is in Ruby and we have more people with JS knowledge. New
> database vs. New language. It's hard to say.
>
> Moving on to ecosystem analysis...
>
>   * clahub last commit was in Feb 2017 and they have 14 contributors.
>   * cla-assistant last commit was 3 hours ago and they have 30
> contributors. Besides SAP backing it, they have PRs from Microsoft too. A
> bunch of code cover

Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Justin Obara]

Hello,

I’ve added a cla-bot test repo now and have provided my initial summary of
it, similar to what I did for cla-assistant and clahub.

Thanks
Justin

cla-bot

cla-bot <https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/> is a GitHub application
for automating CLAs. It is open source and licensed unert MIT.

https://github.com/ColinEberhardt/cla-bot
Process to setup

   - One of our repo admins would go to the app page
   https://github.com/apps/cla-bot and install it
   - It can be added to an entire organization or per repo.
   - Configuration is handled through a .clabot file in each repo (
   https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/#configuration-options )
   - Need to either add contributors to the .clabot config file or updated
   a service on our end that returns

Process for a contributor

You can test by submitting a PR to https://github.com/jobara/clahub-testRepo

   - contributor submits a PR
   - cla-bot checks if the contributor has signed a CLA. It will indicate
   on the check if it passes or not.
   - If the check fails, the contributor is e-mailed a message about
   signing the CLA

Pros

   - Easy to install
   - Can setup for the entire organization or per repo

Cons

   - need to add a .clabot file to each repo
   - need to either manually update the contributors list in each .clabot
   file or setup a service that can handle the look up
   - need to manually handle distribution and collection of CLAs. Probably
   the best we could do is provide a link to or the contents of the CLA in the
   message that is e-mailed to the contributor. But we’d still need to
   manually ensure that it was returned and update the .clabot files or our
   own verification service for the check to pass.
   - only two contributors to cla-bot so far, but it’s a new project



On April 11, 2018 at 5:12:44 AM, Tony Atkins (t...@raisingthefloor.org)
wrote:

Hi, Avtar:

I took at look at their docs and presence on GitHub.  It looks well done,
and they seem responsive, but there are exactly two committers.  All
projects had to start somewhere, this might simply mean that they're doing
something new and better than other groups and it's just early days, but
it's something I would keep in mind once we get down to the ease of use,
features, etc.  and are narrowing down to a final candidate.

Cheers,


Tony

On 10 April 2018 at 20:46, Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca> wrote:

> Do people have any mild, medium, or strong feelings about this project?
> https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/
>
> From the project's page:
>
> * The approved contributor list can be maintained in various ways
> including JSON files or a webhook
> * Provides a fully-hosted solution, you don't have to maintain your own
> bit installation
>
> Avtar
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tirloni, Giovanni
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:37 PM
> To: Justin Obara <obara.jus...@gmail.com>; Bates, Simon <sba...@ocadu.ca>
> Cc: Fluid Work <fluid-w...@fluidproject.org>; Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca>;
> Harnum, Alan <ahar...@ocadu.ca>
> Subject: Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
>
> Hello,
>
> On one hand, cla-assistant introduces a new database for us (MongoDB). On
> the other, clahub is in Ruby and we have more people with JS knowledge. New
> database vs. New language. It's hard to say.
>
> Moving on to ecosystem analysis...
>
>   * clahub last commit was in Feb 2017 and they have 14 contributors.
>   * cla-assistant last commit was 3 hours ago and they have 30
> contributors. Besides SAP backing it, they have PRs from Microsoft too. A
> bunch of code coverage, test and dependency checks in their README.
>
> I'm thinking the cla-assistant project might be in better shape but I
> haven't tried to deploy either one.
>
> Regards,
> Giovanni
>
> On 04/10/2018 01:12 PM, Justin Obara wrote:
> > Thanks Simon,
> >
> > I wonder if Gio, Avtar, Alan or others might have thoughts on that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Justin
> >
> > On April 4, 2018 at 10:53:21 AM, Bates, Simon (sba...@ocadu.ca  sba...@ocadu.ca>) wrote:
> >
> >> Something that we may want to take into consideration is the
> implementation language/technology (if we end up hosting an instance
> ourselves).
> >>
> >> cla-assistant is JavaScript Node.js with MongoDB for persistence
> >>
> >> and clahub is Ruby on Rails
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: fluid-work <fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca  fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca>> on behalf of Justin Obara <
> obara.jus...@gmail.com <mailto:obara.jus...@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: April 3, 2018 3:35 PM
> >> To: Fluid Work
> >> Subject: 

Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Tony Atkins]

Hi, Avtar:

I took at look at their docs and presence on GitHub.  It looks well done,
and they seem responsive, but there are exactly two committers.  All
projects had to start somewhere, this might simply mean that they're doing
something new and better than other groups and it's just early days, but
it's something I would keep in mind once we get down to the ease of use,
features, etc.  and are narrowing down to a final candidate.

Cheers,


Tony

On 10 April 2018 at 20:46, Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca> wrote:

> Do people have any mild, medium, or strong feelings about this project?
> https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/
>
> From the project's page:
>
> * The approved contributor list can be maintained in various ways
> including JSON files or a webhook
> * Provides a fully-hosted solution, you don't have to maintain your own
> bit installation
>
> Avtar
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tirloni, Giovanni
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:37 PM
> To: Justin Obara <obara.jus...@gmail.com>; Bates, Simon <sba...@ocadu.ca>
> Cc: Fluid Work <fluid-w...@fluidproject.org>; Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca>;
> Harnum, Alan <ahar...@ocadu.ca>
> Subject: Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
>
> Hello,
>
> On one hand, cla-assistant introduces a new database for us (MongoDB). On
> the other, clahub is in Ruby and we have more people with JS knowledge. New
> database vs. New language. It's hard to say.
>
> Moving on to ecosystem analysis...
>
>   * clahub last commit was in Feb 2017 and they have 14 contributors.
>   * cla-assistant last commit was 3 hours ago and they have 30
> contributors. Besides SAP backing it, they have PRs from Microsoft too. A
> bunch of code coverage, test and dependency checks in their README.
>
> I'm thinking the cla-assistant project might be in better shape but I
> haven't tried to deploy either one.
>
> Regards,
> Giovanni
>
> On 04/10/2018 01:12 PM, Justin Obara wrote:
> > Thanks Simon,
> >
> > I wonder if Gio, Avtar, Alan or others might have thoughts on that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Justin
> >
> > On April 4, 2018 at 10:53:21 AM, Bates, Simon (sba...@ocadu.ca  sba...@ocadu.ca>) wrote:
> >
> >> Something that we may want to take into consideration is the
> implementation language/technology (if we end up hosting an instance
> ourselves).
> >>
> >> cla-assistant is JavaScript Node.js with MongoDB for persistence
> >>
> >> and clahub is Ruby on Rails
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: fluid-work <fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca  fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca>> on behalf of Justin Obara <
> obara.jus...@gmail.com <mailto:obara.jus...@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: April 3, 2018 3:35 PM
> >> To: Fluid Work
> >> Subject: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> We've been talking about simplifying the process of getting CLAs signed
> for some time now. Below I'll provide a summary of the current process as
> well as the two leading CLA service contenders. We'd really appreciate your
> feedback and suggestions on which approach to take. Also, if you have any
> question or would like further clarification on any part, please let me
> know.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Justin
> >>
> >>
> >> Current Process - paper based
> >>
> >> * A contributor is directed to the Fluid Licensing<https://wiki.
> fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+Licensing#FluidLicensing-
> ContributorLicenseAgreements> wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA
> >> * The contributor downloads the CLA or CCLA
> >> * The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back
> to the IDRC
> >> * We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it
> >>
> >> Current Process - paper based
> >>
> >> Our current process has been in place for many years now is essentially
> paper based.
> >>
> >> Process for a contributor
> >>
> >> A contributor is directed to the Fluid Licensing<https://wiki.
> fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+Licensing#FluidLicensing-
> ContributorLicenseAgreements> wiki page to sign either the CLA or the
> CCLA The contributor downloads the CLA or CCLA The contributor fills out
> the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back to the IDRC We print off a copy
> of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it
> >>
> >> Pros
> >>
> >> * Official document signed with all of t

RE: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Gill, Avtar]

Do people have any mild, medium, or strong feelings about this project? 
https://colineberhardt.github.io/cla-bot/

>From the project's page:

* The approved contributor list can be maintained in various ways including 
JSON files or a webhook
* Provides a fully-hosted solution, you don't have to maintain your own bit 
installation

Avtar


-Original Message-
From: Tirloni, Giovanni 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:37 PM
To: Justin Obara <obara.jus...@gmail.com>; Bates, Simon <sba...@ocadu.ca>
Cc: Fluid Work <fluid-w...@fluidproject.org>; Gill, Avtar <ag...@ocadu.ca>; 
Harnum, Alan <ahar...@ocadu.ca>
Subject: Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

Hello,

On one hand, cla-assistant introduces a new database for us (MongoDB). On the 
other, clahub is in Ruby and we have more people with JS knowledge. New 
database vs. New language. It's hard to say.

Moving on to ecosystem analysis...

  * clahub last commit was in Feb 2017 and they have 14 contributors.
  * cla-assistant last commit was 3 hours ago and they have 30 contributors. 
Besides SAP backing it, they have PRs from Microsoft too. A bunch of code 
coverage, test and dependency checks in their README.

I'm thinking the cla-assistant project might be in better shape but I haven't 
tried to deploy either one.

Regards,
Giovanni

On 04/10/2018 01:12 PM, Justin Obara wrote:
> Thanks Simon,
> 
> I wonder if Gio, Avtar, Alan or others might have thoughts on that.
> 
> Thanks
> Justin
> 
> On April 4, 2018 at 10:53:21 AM, Bates, Simon (sba...@ocadu.ca 
> <mailto:sba...@ocadu.ca>) wrote:
> 
>> Something that we may want to take into consideration is the implementation 
>> language/technology (if we end up hosting an instance ourselves).
>>
>> cla-assistant is JavaScript Node.js with MongoDB for persistence
>>
>> and clahub is Ruby on Rails
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> 
>> From: fluid-work <fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca 
>> <mailto:fluid-work-boun...@lists.idrc.ocad.ca>> on behalf of Justin Obara 
>> <obara.jus...@gmail.com <mailto:obara.jus...@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: April 3, 2018 3:35 PM
>> To: Fluid Work
>> Subject: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We've been talking about simplifying the process of getting CLAs signed for 
>> some time now. Below I'll provide a summary of the current process as well 
>> as the two leading CLA service contenders. We'd really appreciate your 
>> feedback and suggestions on which approach to take. Also, if you have any 
>> question or would like further clarification on any part, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> Current Process - paper based
>>
>> * A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
>> Licensing<https://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+Licensing#FluidLicensing-ContributorLicenseAgreements>
>>  wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA
>> * The contributor downloads the CLA or CCLA
>> * The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back to 
>> the IDRC
>> * We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it
>>
>> Current Process - paper based
>>
>> Our current process has been in place for many years now is essentially 
>> paper based.
>>
>> Process for a contributor
>>
>> A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
>> Licensing<https://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+Licensing#FluidLicensing-ContributorLicenseAgreements>
>>  wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA The contributor downloads the 
>> CLA or CCLA The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it 
>> back to the IDRC We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store 
>> it
>>
>> Pros
>>
>> * Official document signed with all of the contributors key details filled 
>> out
>> * physical copy stored
>>
>> Cons
>>
>> * hard to co-ordinate with contributors, especially if they are in different 
>> timezones and/or they are contributing a single small change
>> * hard to determine if a contributor has signed a CLA before
>> * our current CLA doesn't record GitHub ID
>>
>> CLA Assistant
>>
>> CLA Assistant<https://cla-assistant.io> is an online service created by the 
>> GitHub team at SAP. It's an open source project and we would have the option 
>> to run our own instance if we choose.
>>
>> https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant
>>
>> Process to setup
>>
>> * One of our repo admins would save a CLA in a Gist on GitHub (I bel

Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Tirloni, Giovanni]

Hello,

On one hand, cla-assistant introduces a new database for us (MongoDB). On the 
other, clahub is in Ruby and we have more people with JS knowledge. New 
database vs. New language. It's hard to say.

Moving on to ecosystem analysis...

  * clahub last commit was in Feb 2017 and they have 14 contributors.
  * cla-assistant last commit was 3 hours ago and they have 30 contributors. 
Besides SAP backing it, they have PRs from Microsoft too. A bunch of code 
coverage, test and dependency checks in their README.

I'm thinking the cla-assistant project might be in better shape but I haven't 
tried to deploy either one.

Regards,
Giovanni

On 04/10/2018 01:12 PM, Justin Obara wrote:
> Thanks Simon,
> 
> I wonder if Gio, Avtar, Alan or others might have thoughts on that.
> 
> Thanks
> Justin
> 
> On April 4, 2018 at 10:53:21 AM, Bates, Simon (sba...@ocadu.ca 
> ) wrote:
> 
>> Something that we may want to take into consideration is the implementation 
>> language/technology (if we end up hosting an instance ourselves).
>>
>> cla-assistant is JavaScript Node.js with MongoDB for persistence
>>
>> and clahub is Ruby on Rails
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> 
>> From: fluid-work > > on behalf of Justin Obara 
>> >
>> Sent: April 3, 2018 3:35 PM
>> To: Fluid Work
>> Subject: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We’ve been talking about simplifying the process of getting CLAs signed for 
>> some time now. Below I’ll provide a summary of the current process as well 
>> as the two leading CLA service contenders. We’d really appreciate your 
>> feedback and suggestions on which approach to take. Also, if you have any 
>> question or would like further clarification on any part, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> Current Process - paper based
>>
>> * A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
>> Licensing
>>  wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA
>> * The contributor downloads the CLA or CCLA
>> * The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back to 
>> the IDRC
>> * We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it
>>
>> Current Process - paper based
>>
>> Our current process has been in place for many years now is essentially 
>> paper based.
>>
>> Process for a contributor
>>
>> A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
>> Licensing
>>  wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA The contributor downloads the 
>> CLA or CCLA The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it 
>> back to the IDRC We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store 
>> it
>>
>> Pros
>>
>> * Official document signed with all of the contributors key details filled 
>> out
>> * physical copy stored
>>
>> Cons
>>
>> * hard to co-ordinate with contributors, especially if they are in different 
>> timezones and/or they are contributing a single small change
>> * hard to determine if a contributor has signed a CLA before
>> * our current CLA doesn’t record GitHub ID
>>
>> CLA Assistant
>>
>> CLA Assistant is an online service created by the 
>> GitHub team at SAP. It’s an open source project and we would have the option 
>> to run our own instance if we choose.
>>
>> https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant
>>
>> Process to setup
>>
>> * One of our repo admins would save a CLA in a Gist on GitHub (I believe it 
>> can be public or private)
>> * One of our repo admins would login to CLA Assistant with their GitHub 
>> account and link the repos to the CLA
>>
>> Process for a contributor
>>
>> You can test by submitting a PR to 
>> https://github.com/jobara/cla-assistant-testRepo
>>
>> * contributor submits a PR
>> * CLA Assistant checks if the contributor has signed a CLA. It will mark the 
>> PR to indicate if it needs to be signed or not. (e.g. 
>> https://github.com/jobara/cla-assistant-testRepo/pull/1#issuecomment–378346476
>>  
>> 
>>  )
>> * If a CLA hasn’t been signed by the contributor, they are also e-mailed a 
>> notice that they are required to sign it.
>> * The contributor clicks a link from the PR or the e-mail and they are shown 
>> the CLA and can click a button to sign it using their GitHub credentials.
>>
>> Pros
>>
>> * Easy to manage, it is all handled automatically
>> * Can import existing contributors with a CSV file
>> * Admins can log into the CLA Assistant interface to get a list of all of 
>> the contributors who have signed 

Re: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

[Bates, Simon]

Something that we may want to take into consideration is the implementation 
language/technology (if we end up hosting an instance ourselves).

cla-assistant is JavaScript Node.js with MongoDB for persistence

and clahub is Ruby on Rails

Simon


From: fluid-work  on behalf of Justin 
Obara 
Sent: April 3, 2018 3:35 PM
To: Fluid Work
Subject: CLA service for Fluid GitHub repos

Hi everyone,

We’ve been talking about simplifying the process of getting CLAs signed for 
some time now. Below I’ll provide a summary of the current process as well as 
the two leading CLA service contenders. We’d really appreciate your feedback 
and suggestions on which approach to take. Also, if you have any question or 
would like further clarification on any part, please let me know.

Thanks
Justin


Current Process - paper based

  *   A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
Licensing
 wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA
  *   The contributor downloads the CLA or CCLA
  *   The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back to 
the IDRC
  *   We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it

Current Process - paper based

Our current process has been in place for many years now is essentially paper 
based.

Process for a contributor

A contributor is directed to the Fluid 
Licensing
 wiki page to sign either the CLA or the CCLA The contributor downloads the CLA 
or CCLA The contributor fills out the CLA or CCLA and scans or faxes it back to 
the IDRC We print off a copy of the CLA or CCLA and physically store it

Pros

  *   Official document signed with all of the contributors key details filled 
out
  *   physical copy stored

Cons

  *   hard to co-ordinate with contributors, especially if they are in 
different timezones and/or they are contributing a single small change
  *   hard to determine if a contributor has signed a CLA before
  *   our current CLA doesn’t record GitHub ID

CLA Assistant

CLA Assistant is an online service created by the 
GitHub team at SAP. It’s an open source project and we would have the option to 
run our own instance if we choose.

https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant

Process to setup

  *   One of our repo admins would save a CLA in a Gist on GitHub (I believe it 
can be public or private)
  *   One of our repo admins would login to CLA Assistant with their GitHub 
account and link the repos to the CLA

Process for a contributor

You can test by submitting a PR to 
https://github.com/jobara/cla-assistant-testRepo

  *   contributor submits a PR
  *   CLA Assistant checks if the contributor has signed a CLA. It will mark 
the PR to indicate if it needs to be signed or not. (e.g. 
https://github.com/jobara/cla-assistant-testRepo/pull/1#issuecomment–378346476
 )
  *   If a CLA hasn’t been signed by the contributor, they are also e-mailed a 
notice that they are required to sign it.
  *   The contributor clicks a link from the PR or the e-mail and they are 
shown the CLA and can click a button to sign it using their GitHub credentials.

Pros

  *   Easy to manage, it is all handled automatically
  *   Can import existing contributors with a CSV file
  *   Admins can log into the CLA Assistant interface to get a list of all of 
the contributors who have signed the CLA
  *   Admins can export the list of contributors

Cons

  *   CLA Assistant requires a lot of access to our GitHub repos including 
being able to write to everything

CLAHub

CLAHub is an open source project and online service now 
maintained
 by the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard 
University.
 We should also be able to setup our own instance if need be.

https://github.com/clahub/clahub

Process to setup

  *   One of our repo admins would login to CLAHub with their GitHub 
credentials and register each repo
  *   The admin would need to fill in the CLA text for each repo that is added.
  *   The admin can also choose extra fields required to be signed (e-mail, 
name, mailing address, country, phone or Skype, Type “I AGREE”, Type your 
initials, and Corporate Contributor Information)

Process for a contributor

You can test by submitting a PR to