On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*.
>
> Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to
> have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to
> put his signature on a piece of paper?
>
Because Antoine
> We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*.
Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to
have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to
put his signature on a piece of paper?
Regards,
Martin
___
python-committer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/11 14:35, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Well, I agree that not so much development effort has been lost because
> of us checking contributor agreements, but I think there's a reason, and
> you might not like it.
I sent my signature in 2008 (I faxed
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:18 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> contributor-agreem...@python.org could be aliased to
> p...@python.org, p...@python.org, or even better, a
> PSF committee taking care of this business.
Lest this strike fear into the hearts of members I would point out that it
would operate mu
I really don't understand what all the fuzz is about. We have
a two step process:
* Step 1
What the PSF initially needs is an acknowledgement of the
contributor (committer or not) that he or she is willing to
accept and enter into the agreement.
This can be done by checking a checkbox on the bug
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello Steve,
>
>> > I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about
>> > religions, be it christianism or intellectual property.
>> > If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get
>> > in the way*.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse.
>> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about
>> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole
>> > committers freely.
>>
>> While I agree with you that we
Hello Steve,
> > I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about
> > religions, be it christianism or intellectual property.
> > If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get
> > in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP
> > righ
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about
> religions, be it christianism or intellectual property.
> If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get
> in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaim
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 08:07 -0500, Jesse Noller a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> >> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and
> >> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.
> >
> > I hate arguments from authority,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and
>> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.
>
> I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of
> committers by changesets (thanks Mercur
> I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Are you saying the PSF shouldn't
> bother making sure the copyright to python is unencumbered?
Eric, let me quote myself again:
Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I
request
that the PSF gets its act toge
On 3/9/2011 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and
simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.
I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of
committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you
> I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and
> simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.
I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of
committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the
most sensitive to such issues
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse.
>> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about
>> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole
>> > committers freely.
>>
>> While I agree with you that we
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse.
>> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about
>> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole
>> > committers freely.
>>
>> While I agree with you that we
> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse.
> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about
> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole
> > committers freely.
>
> While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret
> what "other projec
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:25 -0500, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital
>> > signature technologies and their uncertain place i
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:25 -0500, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital
> > signature technologies and their uncertain place in law.
>
> What we *could* do though, is have a better expl
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't
> always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the
> process is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation
> to do what i
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital
> signature technologies and their uncertain place in law.
What we *could* do though, is have a better explanation of the reasons
behind the relatively archaic process for submissi
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:00 -0500, Steve Holden a écrit :
>> But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a
>> contributor agreement very simply.
>
> That's like saying "anyone with access to a printer can send a patch
We have to have contributor agreements on file for core committers.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?
>
>
>
> Message transféré
> De: Pat Campbell
> À: Antoine Pitrou
> Cc: Steve Holden
> Sujet: Re: [pytho
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:00 -0500, Steve Holden a écrit :
> But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a
> contributor agreement very simply.
That's like saying "anyone with access to a printer can send a patch via
postal mail".
Sorry, but we are in the 21th century now.
Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't
always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the process
is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation to do what
it's doing, but we would love to do it more efficiently. But a
Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I request
that the PSF gets its act together and solves the "electronic
contributor agreement" issue once and for all?
The way we core developers are prevented from working properly is
**totally** unacceptable.
Thank you
Antoine.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF
>> nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well?
>
> ? I've never sent any photo to the PSF... (and I don't intend doing so)
"... of the signed nominat
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?
Yes.
Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker
need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches
can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit
rights.
Otherwise, the PSF does not h
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 06:29 -0500, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?
>
> I believe so (cc'ed Van to double check).
>
> I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF
> nom
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?
I believe so (cc'ed Van to double check).
I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF
nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well?
Cheers,
Nick.
What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?
Message transféré
De: Pat Campbell
À: Antoine Pitrou
Cc: Steve Holden
Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500
Hi All:
I have not received a contributor agreement for
31 matches
Mail list logo
