Re: [Board] Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 2009-8-20 06:54, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 2009-8-13 22:16, Alexander Limi wrote: FWIW, Mozilla runs their entire project without a contributor agreement — so we are already way ahead of what most large open source projects do on this front. :) Or way behind when shit hits your fan. Those agreements exists for good reasons. i think alex' we referred to plone here, not mozilla... ;) yay for language ambiguity :) Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Board] Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
2009/7/29 Martin Aspeli optil...@gmail.com 2009/7/29 Jon Stahl jonst...@gmail.com: So, my question is: what qualifies as explicit agreement? Does it have to be on the permanent record in some manner? In our business, an email that you keep tends to be enough. I would: - Ask the relevant people by email - Ask them to reply by email giving explicit consent - Store those emails forever - Make a note in a CONTRIBUTORS.txt or similar that these people consented on a particular date If that's ever in dispute, you can go back to those emails. I don't see a reason for any kind of wet signature so long as they've signed the contributor agreement. We're not *trying* to be difficult. :) +1. One thing that SFLC taught us is that any lawyer will always advice you to have their name signed in blood etc, to make *really* sure that nothing goes wrong. In practice, as long as you can show reasonable intent (and an email should be plenty, if there's forgery going on, that's a different issue), so I think this should be good enough. Keeping the dates in a text file is also convenient. FWIW, Mozilla runs their entire project without a contributor agreement — so we are already way ahead of what most large open source projects do on this front. :) — Alexander ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Jon Stahl wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Geir Bækholt · Jarnbaekh...@jarn.com wrote: There is a step missing here: contributors must not only have signed the agreement, they must explicitly allow that specific code to be donated to the foundation. Signing the contributor agreement does not mean all your code can be moved at will to the foundation. Yes, of course. Implied but omitted. My bad. Thanks. So, my question is: what qualifies as explicit agreement? Does it have to be on the permanent record in some manner? In our business, an email that you keep tends to be enough. I would: - Ask the relevant people by email - Ask them to reply by email giving explicit consent - Store those emails forever - Make a note in a CONTRIBUTORS.txt or similar that these people consented on a particular date If that's ever in dispute, you can go back to those emails. I don't see a reason for any kind of wet signature so long as they've signed the contributor agreement. We're not *trying* to be difficult. :) Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 7/29/09 7:51 AM, Jon Stahl wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Geir Bækholt · Jarnbaekh...@jarn.com wrote: There is a step missing here: contributors must not only have signed the agreement, they must explicitly allow that specific code to be donated to the foundation. Signing the contributor agreement does not mean all your code can be moved at will to the foundation. Yes, of course. Implied but omitted. My bad. Thanks. So, my question is: what qualifies as explicit agreement? Does it have to be on the permanent record in some manner? You'll have to ask the PF legal counsel I'm afraid. I don't know the right answer. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 7/29/09 8:09 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Jon Stahl wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Geir Bækholt · Jarnbaekh...@jarn.com wrote: There is a step missing here: contributors must not only have signed the agreement, they must explicitly allow that specific code to be donated to the foundation. Signing the contributor agreement does not mean all your code can be moved at will to the foundation. Yes, of course. Implied but omitted. My bad. Thanks. So, my question is: what qualifies as explicit agreement? Does it have to be on the permanent record in some manner? In our business, an email that you keep tends to be enough. I would: - Ask the relevant people by email - Ask them to reply by email giving explicit consent - Store those emails forever - Make a note in a CONTRIBUTORS.txt or similar that these people consented on a particular date If that's ever in dispute, you can go back to those emails. I don't see a reason for any kind of wet signature so long as they've signed the contributor agreement. We're not *trying* to be difficult. :) The whole point of the agreement and the conservatory is that we have a solid legal basis. I would really like to see an informed legal opinion on the requirements for moving existing code to foundation ownership. Without that I fear we may be on dangerous ground and risk making the separate repository useless. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 7/29/09 7:51 AM, Jon Stahl wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Geir Bækholt · Jarnbaekh...@jarn.com wrote: There is a step missing here: contributors must not only have signed the agreement, they must explicitly allow that specific code to be donated to the foundation. Signing the contributor agreement does not mean all your code can be moved at will to the foundation. Yes, of course. Implied but omitted. My bad. Thanks. So, my question is: what qualifies as explicit agreement? Does it have to be on the permanent record in some manner? You'll have to ask the PF legal counsel I'm afraid. I don't know the right answer. I suspect you don't need to ask. :) If all contributors of all lines of code that are being moved consent, and have signed the contributor agreement, then there really is no issue. We're now getting into a technical argument about what constitutes consent, but it's hardly that difficult. You ask. They say yes or no. An email trail would be nice. In reality, whenever we deal with these kinds of things, we operate within some margin of acceptable risk. A risk always has a probability of occurring and a probable impact if it does occur. The acceptability of a risk depends on these two factors. Equally, there's a (usually more measurable) cost and sometimes other risks associated with doing nothing. So, in this case, we're deciding whether to move a product into the PF repository. There are risks and costs associated with not doing this, that is, the usual risks to Plone associated with code not covered by the agreement. There are risks associated with going ahead with the move, such as: - Rob may lie about some contributor having consented - Rob may misinterpret a particular response as consent - Someone may indicate consent and then lie about it later, pretending they didn't consent, and try to raise hell - We may have it all wrong, and it may turn out there is some convoluted legal procedure we *have* to follow, and if we don't, men in expensive suits are going to come after us The probability of any of those occurring I'd say is very low. The impact would also likely be very low if any of these things did occur. Most likely, the worst that would happen is that the PF board would need to discuss it for a bit. In the worst case, we move the code back to the Collective. Let's try not to use the we're not lawyers argument as self-censorship stop energy. The reality is that there's a big grey zone that we all operate in every day, whether we are aware or not, and in reality the spirit of the contributor agreement and the conservancy model matters infinitely more than the technical details. Furthermore, I suspect if you asked two lawyers, you'd get at least two different answers. Of course - I'm not a lawyer. But I do deal with these kinds of questions quite often over commercial matters where there is a lot more at stake than there is here, and a much higher probability of actual, quantifiable losses if important steps are missed. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Wichert Akkermanwich...@wiggy.net wrote: The whole point of the agreement and the conservatory is that we have a solid legal basis. I would really like to see an informed legal opinion on the requirements for moving existing code to foundation ownership. Without that I fear we may be on dangerous ground and risk making the separate repository useless. Geir, if this is not territory that's been covered before, would you be willing to ping David Powsner about it? :jon ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Martin Aspelioptilude+li...@gmail.com wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: The whole point of the agreement and the conservatory is that we have a solid legal basis. I would really like to see an informed legal opinion on the requirements for moving existing code to foundation ownership. Without that I fear we may be on dangerous ground and risk making the separate repository useless. +100 For what I know we needed to explicitly state what code we had written and wanted to donate to the Foundation for work done prior to the agreement. We do need some kind of document (whatever constitutes a legal document in Delaware) that states who transfers what code to the Foundation. Just because I signed the agreement to transfer the my rights in the stuff now in the Plone repo, doesn't mean I automatically transfer the copyright in anything else. But don't let it stop or discourage people from doing what's right. The Contributor Agreement is pretty clear reading, especially the front page matter: http://plone.org/foundation/contributors-agreement/agreement.pdf The first thing you learn about the legal system is that the written text of any agreement or contract is just a tiny little piece of what actually is the case. What is written might be clearly illegal, it might not match current law practice as exercised by courts anymore or the text might look like it's stating something whereas the legal language makes it something else. Legal language and English only seem to be the same for some degree, but they aren't really. People get far too worked up over the What Would A Layer Do question, probably in the belief that there is in fact a black-and-white answer that they're just not qualified to know. I can understand it coming from Americans. They probably have wristbands with that written on them. Less so from the Dutch. :) There's never a black-and-white answer. But with American case law you have no clue whatsoever what could be the case without studying a lot of law. Since we have pro-bono legal council, we better make use of it for important legal concerns. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 7/27/09 10:52 PM, Geir Bækholt · Jarn wrote: On 27. juli. 2009, at 22.12, Jon Stahl wrote: Absolutely. Getting the code into the Foundation's long-term conservancy is very much worth doing if it's not too terribly hard. I've not been through the process before of moving Collective code to the Foundation, but I know Jarn has done this, so perhaps Geir can enlighten us there on whether any additional steps are required other than making sure all contributors have signed the Contributor Agreement. I don't know of any special considerations beyond the normal ones. - Code must meet Plone's quality assurance level. (i.e pass PLIP review) - All contributors must have signed the agreement. - Some sort of consensus that the code is of general use to Plone and the community, and that the community is the best entity to manage maintenance long term. - Licensing There is a step missing here: contributors must not only have signed the agreement, they must explicitly allow that specific code to be donated to the foundation. Signing the contributor agreement does not mean all your code can be moved at will to the foundation. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Rob Gietema wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some feedback on two issues: Yay! I'm using it in a project right now, and really like it. 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base to Plone SVN? +0 This means the copyright transfers to the Foundation, so if anyone other than you worked on it, you may need their approval. 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? -1 if it'll break imports for people who've got Products.TinyMCE now and upgrade. +0 otherwise. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Hi Martin, On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.comoptilude%2bli...@gmail.com wrote: Rob Gietema wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some feedback on two issues: Yay! I'm using it in a project right now, and really like it. 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base to Plone SVN? +0 This means the copyright transfers to the Foundation, so if anyone other than you worked on it, you may need their approval. This shouldn't be an issue at all since 99.9% of the code is done by me, just some small bugfixes by others who also have commit access to Plone SVN and I'm sure won't mind. 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? -1 if it'll break imports for people who've got Products.TinyMCE now and upgrade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any usecase where someone would want to import something from Products.TinyMCE. +0 otherwise. Martin -- Rob ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Rob Gietema wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any usecase where someone would want to import something from Products.TinyMCE. What about persistent data, e.g. the tool? Can be fixed with module aliases, though. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 7/27/09 4:56 PM, Rob Gietema wrote: This shouldn't be an issue at all since 99.9% of the code is done by me, just some small bugfixes by others who also have commit access to Plone SVN and I'm sure won't mind. That's not good enough: you need explicit approval. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net writes: On 7/27/09 1:38 PM, Rob Gietema wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some feedback on two issues: 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base to Plone SVN? -0 I see no reason to move it. 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? -1 There is no benefit to moving, and this will make it harder to maintain Plone 3 and 4 trees in parallel. I'm -1 to both of these, potential disruption for no benefit I can see. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
I don't see much upside to renaming the package. On the other hand, the more core Plone code that's owned by the foundation the better, IMO. If Rob is willing to do the work to get all contributors to sign over their contributions, then it's probably worth pursuing. Alec On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ross Pattersonm...@rpatterson.net wrote: Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net writes: On 7/27/09 1:38 PM, Rob Gietema wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some feedback on two issues: 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base to Plone SVN? -0 I see no reason to move it. 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? -1 There is no benefit to moving, and this will make it harder to maintain Plone 3 and 4 trees in parallel. I'm -1 to both of these, potential disruption for no benefit I can see. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
Absolutely. Getting the code into the Foundation's long-term conservancy is very much worth doing if it's not too terribly hard. I've not been through the process before of moving Collective code to the Foundation, but I know Jarn has done this, so perhaps Geir can enlighten us there on whether any additional steps are required other than making sure all contributors have signed the Contributor Agreement. :jon On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Alec Mitchellap...@columbia.edu wrote: I don't see much upside to renaming the package. On the other hand, the more core Plone code that's owned by the foundation the better, IMO. If Rob is willing to do the work to get all contributors to sign over their contributions, then it's probably worth pursuing. Alec On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ross Pattersonm...@rpatterson.net wrote: Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net writes: On 7/27/09 1:38 PM, Rob Gietema wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some feedback on two issues: 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base to Plone SVN? -0 I see no reason to move it. 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? -1 There is no benefit to moving, and this will make it harder to maintain Plone 3 and 4 trees in parallel. I'm -1 to both of these, potential disruption for no benefit I can see. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] PLIP #9249 Add TinyMCE as the default visual editor
On 27. juli. 2009, at 22.12, Jon Stahl wrote: Absolutely. Getting the code into the Foundation's long-term conservancy is very much worth doing if it's not too terribly hard. I've not been through the process before of moving Collective code to the Foundation, but I know Jarn has done this, so perhaps Geir can enlighten us there on whether any additional steps are required other than making sure all contributors have signed the Contributor Agreement. I don't know of any special considerations beyond the normal ones. - Code must meet Plone's quality assurance level. (i.e pass PLIP review) - All contributors must have signed the agreement. - Some sort of consensus that the code is of general use to Plone and the community, and that the community is the best entity to manage maintenance long term. - Licensing Makes sense to me to move it to the Plone repository in preparation of PLIP review — as long as licenses match and all contributors are clear. :-) -- ___ Geir Bækholt · Managing Director, Jarn · www.jarn.com Plone Solutions, Development, Hosting and Support __ ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
