Update project-charter.md #71
Conversation
Note for 8.2.1 we should consider implementing a bot to get signoff on the contributor agreement.
jgbarah
left a comment
jgbarah
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for these proposals. Please see my comments to specific parts of the patch.
Maybe we could refine this a bit (if needed) and just send the link to this (or a new PR, if needed) to the GB for comments/approval?
| 7. Participation in the Project, including contributions to any Committee or Workgroup, is open to all under the terms of this Charter. | ||
|
|
||
| 8. The GB may (1) establish work flow procedures for the submission, approval, and closure/archiving of Technical Committees and projects of Technical Committees, (2) set requirements for the promotion to or removal from Technical Committee roles, as applicable, and (3) amend, adjust, refine and/or eliminate the roles as it sees fit. | ||
| 8. The GB may (1) establish work flow procedures for the submission, approval, and closure/archiving of Committees and projects of Committees, (2) set requirements for the promotion to or removal from Committee roles, as applicable, and (3) amend, adjust, refine and/or eliminate the roles as it sees fit. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe the same for workgroups?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Depends on what we decide regarding comment on line 31.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we agree on wgs being only disbanded by the GB, this wouldn't be needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the issue on this one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment was about the responsibility the GB has over Working Groups. Jesus suggested to assign the same responsibilities as for Committees.
| 1. All new inbound code contributions must be accompanied by a Developer Certificate of Origin sign-off ([http://developercertificate.org)](http://developercertificate.org) | ||
|
|
||
| 2. All contributions of code will be received and made available under the GNU General Public License, Version 2 or later, or Version 3 or later. | ||
| 2. All contributions of code will be received and made available under the GNU General Public License, Version 2 or later, or Version 3 or later or an OSI-approved open source license defined by the software project |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not against broadening the licensing choices, as long as projects may decide their own licensing. But maybe this specific point should be commented with the software projects thmselves, before proposing to the GB? At least, to have their input about what they think... The main problem I see with license proliferation is that maybe we're going to increase the trouble for reusing ccde between our own projects (eg, if some of them decides to go with some GPL-incompatible OSI approved license).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to getting LF feedback before making this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@germonprez what do you think if we deal with this in a separate pull request, if you feel it is a change we should make, and we discuss it there, with the feedback from LF and people more involved in code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm actually for the OSI language. I think that any project the comes in would be subject to review and it is quite possible to have a different license. This does remind me that we need to have a 'contributor signoff' bot in the workflow.
|
I propose to depreciate this pull request and split up changes into their own pull requests:
|
|
Works for me. I'll close it. |
4 participants
Note for 8.2.1 we should consider implementing a bot to get signoff on the contributor agreement.