On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:14 AM Johannes Rudolph <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Now, for Pekko, we must keep in mind that probably 99% of all current > code is *not* covered by a CLA right now. So, looking at each single > case of a contribution, whether we have a CLA on file or not seems to > matter only a little. Therefore, I would suggest to set the barrier to > require a CLA for contributions really high for practical purposes, > i.e. only for significant features or new submodules added. In > particular, we would not by default require a CLA for contributions > that change existing code (regardless of the size of the change or how > many files have been added or removed). > Another way I like to look at this is as a recruitment pipeline. Typically one of the mistakes I see projects making is setting such a high bar to becoming a committer that it involves somehow hanging around and picking up a whole chunk of project knowledge before they are basically acting as committers, despite the lack of permissions allowing them to do so. It's a grind. Those contributions that you get and think "should we have an ICLA here?" really ought to be "wow, they just passed the first interview. How do we turn this individual into a committer". And as all committers must sign ICLAs, the problem generally works itself out. The time to think ICLA (or Software Grant of License) is when you get a first-interview-worthy contribution and think "This isn't a future committer situation"; for whatever completely fine reason it's that way. Hen
