[gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1326 bytes --]

Summary:
The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach
SoB lines or agree to the DCO.

The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an
allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
&& trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time.

Proposal:
I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts,
to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.

If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
motion with any updated data.

If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.

As president, I will not vote on this motion, because I'm proposing it, so
a tie vote is possible.

Please vote on -nfp; a GPG signed mail is sufficient.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1552 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1596 bytes --]

On 18-10-04 11:14:29, Alec Warner wrote:
> Summary:
> The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach
> SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
> 
> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an
> allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time.
> 
> Proposal:
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts,
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
> 
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> motion with any updated data.
> 
> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.
> 
> As president, I will not vote on this motion, because I'm proposing it, so
> a tie vote is possible.
> 
> Please vote on -nfp; a GPG signed mail is sufficient.
> 

I vote to approve the proposed 90 day whitelist for developers approved
jointly by council/trustees.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote:

> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews
> the new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the
> form of an allowlist where specific identities (approved by some
> delegate of council && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit
> for some period of time.

Does this imply that whitelisted developers are exempt from the
copyright policy altogether? Or are they expected to follow all other
aspects of the copyright policy, with the Signed-off-by line being the
only exception?

Please clarify.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:41 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> > The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews
> > the new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the
> > form of an allowlist where specific identities (approved by some
> > delegate of council && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit
> > for some period of time.
>
> Does this imply that whitelisted developers are exempt from the
> copyright policy altogether? Or are they expected to follow all other
> aspects of the copyright policy, with the Signed-off-by line being the
> only exception?
>

The bug wording was:

"We are requesting a 30 day reprieve on the hard enforcement of
sign-off-by lines in commits to give our legal dept time to approve the
new copyright policy."

Is that clear? This proposal is 90 days, and the reprieve only applies to
approved whitelisted identities.

-A


>
> Please clarify.
>
> Ulrich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1631 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:14 AM Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Summary:
> The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach
> SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
>
> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an
> allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time.
>
> Proposal:
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts,
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
>
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> motion with any updated data.
>
> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.
>
> As president, I will not vote on this motion, because I'm proposing it, so
> a tie vote is possible.
>
> Please vote on -nfp; a GPG signed mail is sufficient.
>

If you could please vote within the next 7 days; I think the council would
appreciate some expedient action in this matter.

Thanks,

-A



>
> -A
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2281 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2192 bytes --]

On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:14 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Summary:
> The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach
> SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
> 
> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an
> allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time.

Don't you think that requiring approval for allowlist means double
standards?  I mean, even if you assume that all requests would be
granted, the requirement of approval provides for this 'delegate'
selecting which developers are granted this privilege and which are not.

In other words, I would rather suggest that the reprieve is granted for
everyone and that the allowlist is maintained by Infra as part of opt-
out hook intended to avoid developers accidentally missing the tag.

> Proposal:
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts,
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
> 
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> motion with any updated data.

I'm confused.  This really reads like 'no extension; except we will vote
on extension if necessary'.

> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.

Does this imply the reprieve will be granted only to the employees of
one particular company, or will it extend to all developers in similar
situation?  In the latter case, will the decision of one company affect
the status of the reprieve for other developers?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Aaron Bauman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:14:29AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Summary:
> The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach
> SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
> 
> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an
> allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time.
> 
> Proposal:
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts,
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
> 
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> motion with any updated data.
> 
> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.
> 
> As president, I will not vote on this motion, because I'm proposing it, so
> a tie vote is possible.
> 
> Please vote on -nfp; a GPG signed mail is sufficient.
> 
> -A

I vote to deny the request for a 90 day extension on the enforcement of
GLEP76.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3227 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:17 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:14 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Summary:
> > The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> > cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> > the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to
> attach
> > SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
> >
> > The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> > new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of
> an
> > allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> > && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of
> time.
>
>
Apologies for my tardy reply.


> Don't you think that requiring approval for allowlist means double
> standards?  I mean, even if you assume that all requests would be
> granted, the requirement of approval provides for this 'delegate'
> selecting which developers are granted this privilege and which are not.
>

> In other words, I would rather suggest that the reprieve is granted for
> everyone and that the allowlist is maintained by Infra as part of opt-
> out hook intended to avoid developers accidentally missing the tag.
>

So basically this would be similar to the gentoo-dev-whitelist, where
anyone can do anything, but there is auditing?

I think this goes against my general feeling is that this is a *specific*
group of developers whom have raised a *specific legal problem* for their
contributions. Based on that I'm happy to grant them a reprieve on that
basis. I'm less happy to grant a reprieve to everyone; because its not
clear what the basis for the reprieve would be.


>
> > Proposal:
> > I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> > days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of
> accounts,
> > to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
> >
> > If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> > motion with any updated data.
>
> I'm confused.  This really reads like 'no extension; except we will vote
> on extension if necessary'.
>

There are no extensions in this proposal, but the proposal does not limit
the actions of the future board. So you read correctly, yes.


>
> > If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> > will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> > company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> > unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.
>
> Does this imply the reprieve will be granted only to the employees of
> one particular company, or will it extend to all developers in similar
> situation?  In the latter case, will the decision of one company affect
> the status of the reprieve for other developers?
>

Tying it back the first part of my reply, this proposal grants a specific
reprieve on a specific basis. If other people want reprieves based on other
basis's[0], I'm happy to listen to them.


>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4370 bytes --]