On a mildly related subject. (and discussions in the vicinity in my inbox) Was the logo CLA covered?
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 6:47 AM Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:14 AM Johannes Rudolph < > johannes.rudo...@gmail.com> > 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 >
