On 07/07/2014 11:30 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Also, CLA's are pointless.
Let's be clear: this is your personal opinion, not that of the OpenStack
project nor of the OpenStack Foundation.
>From OpenStack project's perspective, CLAs are not pointless, they're
mandated by bylaws and by years of prac
On 07/07/2014 08:18 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> Hi John,
> There's a thread started on the legal-discuss list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-July/000304.html
> Probably want to follow along there.
Hi!
a) I agree with Anne - so I have responded there.
b) I agree with Robe
Hi John,
There's a thread started on the legal-discuss list:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-July/000304.html
Probably want to follow along there.
Anne
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM, John Griffith
wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Just wondering what's up with the following items
"Oh hell no".
-Rob
On 8 July 2014 15:13, John Griffith wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Just wondering what's up with the following items showing up in commit
> messages:
>
> "CCLA SCHEDULE B SUBMISSION"
>
> Don't know that I care, but it seems completely unnecessary as signing the
> Corporate CCLA means y
Hey All,
Just wondering what's up with the following items showing up in commit
messages:
"CCLA SCHEDULE B SUBMISSION"
Don't know that I care, but it seems completely unnecessary as signing the
Corporate CCLA means your submissions are of course covered under this
clause (at least I would think)
