Incorrect CLA enforcement in GitHub Actions

[basak]

In #371 I got a failing check on the CLA. However, contributions to Ubuntu itself do not require a CLA. Please fix the check - thanks!

[NucciTheBoss]

CC @beliaev-maksim 👀

For context, @basak is one of the members of Ubuntu's Technical Board.

[beliaev-maksim]

@NucciTheBoss that CLA is configured on the project level, I do not own it

[cpaelzer]

Thanks for bringing it up, after all as Robie said "contributions to Ubuntu itself do not require a CLA". For example a package upload does not strictly need that. And yes Nucci said, yes he is in the TB and would know rather well.
But then you might wonder where does it apply?
As far as I am concerned and understand it, when you contribute to the individual upstream projects owned by Canonical - then we'd need that. Like when you contribute to cloud-init.

To be sure I'm not messing this up let me discuss it with a few more folks, and then we should put down my statement but in better words down in the project docs.

Along resolving that, ideally we'd:

• then disable the CLA check
• also change https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/how-ubuntu-is-made/concepts/glossary/#term-Contributor-Licence-Agreement to something better than "Work in Progress" pointing to https://canonical.com/legal/contributors but also stating roughly what we conclude here.
• allow all other Ubuntu docs to follow that by making this discussion kind of authoritative

[seb128]

I'm posting here as another Ubuntu Technical Board member to confirm that the CLA checker shouldn't be enforced on the ubuntu organization, while some project hosted here might be under CLA most of Ubuntu isn't

[raviksharma]

I think @rkratky copied and pasted the cla check by mistake - https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs/blob/main/.github/workflows/cla-check.yaml

[rkratky]

Hi, I'll remove the check based on comments by @basak and @seb128.

That said, the check wasn't added by mistake. At some point last year, we were told that all Ubuntu projects should be subject to the CLA, which is why we included it in the repo. Obviously, that was incorrect. But it does raise the question where exactly the CLA should be enforced and where it shouldn't.

[cpaelzer]

Thank you all with the immediate and combined force of @basak @seb128 @raviksharma @rkratky and me I think we have enough to consider this concluded.

@rkratky

But it does raise the question where exactly the CLA should be enforced and where it shouldn't.

Hi Robert, last time this was discussed we concluded similarly that gh.com/canonical might have it on by default, but gh.com/ubuntu does not need it (they could if wanted in a project). And in that scope ubuntu documentation projects do not need it and might consider to move here to gh.com/ubuntu.

I see @rkratky will disable the check - thanks.
If either @rkratky or @s-makin could please consider improving https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/how-ubuntu-is-made/concepts/glossary/#term-Contributor-Licence-Agreement along this discussion - that would be great.