From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EFB6138334 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F80DE08FE; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7206E088B for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d74-v6so8652923vke.10 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:31:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=3vCl8tmgVDqKI5U+SRoT+EjZxsFBP2Kjr0mG6jd381M=; b=q8BwpSq9qPM7YeKMNpt067kO0P7BOjzwJZFo5lOWEaYdXkZa12QnCn36bTsmwQTS8S e5boqCzw0mUAwg1XyQ+/k2ve+uI3HKoyszsTK3kw58dBZubq95AW7+PPDdKKR2FWboD4 R4TsLLWCYQ+ElBnDTX1I9DbTyvqIDhTJrUqlhVaOdZ16SRLryCt4FEwvc0x7eXH5VjIP 4wxs6BeQlMoEwuhbp6ORhWv616k0f3Rv84pdU+ucBm5HXmGIshoipHmmblsprpfh3HtB +Nzoblve/G2AY2VFhxou+NTlRTQWqdi1XX9Kb4XoWDw9cUMZjNZfiayfoR/VP32iafJB GIlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3vCl8tmgVDqKI5U+SRoT+EjZxsFBP2Kjr0mG6jd381M=; b=n4kHTqplZGfg6UjjylswYCJRbOYXvswtl6ijN9qujMiuhitYTpYyIPC3qUXnQUHFKr A+djniqXacPKDnmsvdGMu+ZapXuYDUt4v+otHnjiBDZ+WJMcdjXZXyq4DBubuWZ14JlE WSPNr0KfPBdRj7DKgScdv9Uogh5EEHigEISvv99/vW85/PDvCSoMGPVD9NMsqfcaI0P+ sIRpFCxSWYZWn349y/yzjeaMLYjWihX6Q+u1tOJgWDI+05cT/9p0SDuj1ZLeN40UAxbD 9jXhwuOFkh1OcYzR0j4QRaB0DsEnycvuBDcVq9Taxs9RHNCq6XT5jiuTYCjxs6VedSmB ZDtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E22Qg3jGKOif3+HJV5RdreUPYlWA3GhT+p3lR6x9aopOq96ZwIE XbcOAUBUOT0hxllEK5A3vzGtJC97qlBQ8MViFyHSLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJohYlqCoEOO5DWlIkrAmsgVss/n0iD/28S4mTZQuh+jNmZNqaqN2/QiFfu2FmhoaXrf6dHpVqX3yzH/h5Ie68= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2348:: with SMTP id j69-v6mr8320796vkj.160.1529958700212; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 2002:ab0:4803:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2620:15c:2:11:20e4:9b52:f6a8:ef6a] In-Reply-To: References: <23310.46809.293787.611345@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23317.12829.91552.529904@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625013334.GA28404@kroah.com> <23344.37042.753481.563752@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625070525.GA6151@kroah.com> <23344.40875.105369.227774@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625110540.GB3058@kroah.com> <23344.65054.620110.958503@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <0a9228f1-338e-06a3-f3f4-6b27eea71408@iee.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:31:39 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RuFFcvByyoUh1YAUMCqewXAro84 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement? To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8f916056f7d44c2" X-Archives-Salt: 3c355ac5-ce16-41b3-b3b2-c0fda756a514 X-Archives-Hash: 547477446813a6ee1f2ec2a4bda3c74d --000000000000d8f916056f7d44c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > Replying to Rich's last message to reply to the thread, not to Rich > specifically. > > I want to note here that if this comes into effect, and becomes > mandatory, some critical pieces of Gentoo would go unmaintained for > months, if not longer and possibly indefinitely, until the employer of > the maintainers allows them to sign whatever it is you would require. > I'm talking about portage and OpenRC, but there may be other examples. > These particular projects are maintained by developers paid by their > employer to work on them, and as such do much more than a loose team > of unpaid developers. And although they were hired to so they would > have to wait until the corporate legal arm of their employer approves > them signing your document. That's like sending a message in a bottle > if e.g. the employee is based in the US and lawyers in Japan (example > not chosen at random). > I think you paint a fairly black and white picture here. If there are *concrete* issues then I want to see them here (e.g. adopting a DCO means these 5 people cannot contribute without some additional work) because its up to Gentoo to work out these issues. Maybe that means accepting contributions on a contingent basis while we work out the issues. Maybe it means delaying making the DCO mandatory for everyone. Maybe it means talking to lawyers to discuss specific legal problems. None of these mean we shouldn't do a DCO. But if we never learn about these issues, I don't see how we can move forward. > > And let's not forget about the dozens of contributors who would be > barred from doing all the awesome stuff they do everyday across the > entire tree. > I'd rather do what ulm did before and poll people about the DCO (the original poll was about the CLA) than be subject to these arguments where people make up numbers. > Finally, think of the deterrent effect to potential new contributors. > It's not like we get a ton of candidates these days, and like we have > the slightest clue about recruiting them. There's a significant chance > that adding such a legal barrier would end up slowly strangling Gentoo > to death. I'd rather do a DCO and see things like "well we tried to recruit 20 new people but 15 of them left because of a DCO" than be subject to unsubstantiated fear. At least on that basis we can decide that the DCO is 'too risky to staff' and stop requiring it. But that would be an experience based on actually trying something. -A --000000000000d8f916056f7d44c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Denis Dupeyron <= calchan@gentoo.org<= /a>> wrote:
Replying to Rich= 9;s last message to reply to the thread, not to Rich
specifically.

I want to note here that if this comes into effect, and becomes
mandatory, some critical pieces of Gentoo would go unmaintained for
months, if not longer and possibly indefinitely, until the employer of
the maintainers allows them to sign whatever it is you would require.
I'm talking about portage and OpenRC, but there may be other examples.<= br> These particular projects are maintained by developers paid by their
employer to work on them, and as such do much more than a loose team
of unpaid developers. And although they were hired to so they would
have to wait until the corporate legal arm of their employer approves
them signing your document. That's like sending a message in a bottle if e.g. the employee is based in the US and lawyers in Japan (example
not chosen at random).

I think you pain= t a fairly black and white picture here. If there are *concrete* issues the= n I want to see them here (e.g. adopting a DCO means these 5 people cannot = contribute without some additional work) because its up to Gentoo to work o= ut these issues. Maybe that means accepting contributions on a contingent b= asis while we work out the issues. Maybe it means delaying making the DCO m= andatory for everyone. Maybe it means talking to lawyers to discuss specifi= c legal problems.

None of these mean we shouldn= 9;t do a DCO. But if we never learn about these issues, I don't see how= we can move forward.
=C2=A0

And let's not forget about the dozens of contributors who would be
barred from doing all the awesome stuff they do everyday across the
entire tree.

I'd rather do what ulm= did before and poll people about the DCO (the original poll was about the = CLA) than be subject to these arguments where people make up numbers.
=


Finally, think of the deterrent effect to potential new contributors.
It's not like we get a ton of candidates these days, and like we have the slightest clue about recruiting them. There's a significant chance<= br> that adding such a legal barrier would end up slowly strangling Gentoo
to death.

I'd rather do a DCO and see t= hings like "well we tried to recruit 20 new people but 15 of them left= because of a DCO" than be subject to unsubstantiated fear. At least o= n that basis we can decide that the DCO is 'too risky to staff' and= stop requiring it. But that would be an experience based on actually tryin= g something.

-A

--000000000000d8f916056f7d44c2--