On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >> > >> > Would a standard SGA suffice here? >> > >> > I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen >> > first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC >> > vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the >> > SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA >> right >> > away? >> >> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order >> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;) >> > > Haha :) > > SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a > review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the > community accepting the donation.
There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base. Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it. SGA established this kind of proper licensing. Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the community. Thanks, Roman.
