I can add you as an Admin to this organization
https://github.com/nuttx-to-asf it sole purpose is uninhibited collaboration
to feed upstream.
I would recommend not to work outside of the ASF repos, moving that to the ASF
then requires a grant and contributors to sign ICLAs, and companies to give
permission for their employees to do so, etc etc Also for committership
recognition you want work to occur at the ASF repos.
Of course, all works occurs "outside of the ASF repos" on clones or
forks. There is no real way to work "inside" the ASF repos. Normally,
you would work on a fork of the ASF repos and submit PRs to the ASF repos.
But you know that. Just a semantic thing. But emphasizing "outside of
the ASF repos" is not the salient issue. The other things you mention
are issues.
I don't see an problem with other peopls working in the fork. Wouldn't
they just be like any other contributor working on a fork. Using 3rd
party code is certainly an issue and would require an SGA.
Ultimately, the changes end up as "normal" PRs in the AFS repositories.
And people should get the credit that they deserve through those PRs.
Or am I missing something? I just don't see some of the problems (I do
see some others).
(My statements about dictatorship were also just semantics. But let's
let that dead dog lie.)
We can collaborate there.
What's wrong will collaborating in the ASF repos? You don’t need to be a
committer to collaborate and doing so means you are more likely to become one.
That is really a non-sequitur. You can't collaborate in the ASF repos,
you can only collaborate in a clone or a fork of the ASF repos. And, to
my understanding, that is what is being proposed.
I am not a super-big supporter of the approach either because it takes
the visibility of the effort out of the hands of the PPMC and pushes all
review and comment to the final as-built PR(s) which isn't how things
are supposed to work. The PPMC loses all accountability.
Greg
