On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > >> > No, sorry, that doesn't parse. >> > We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about >> > explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole >> > committers freely. >> >> While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret >> what "other projects do" as "doing it right". > > They definitely do it right from a social perspective.
Another way of doing it right from a social perspective is to give someone commit privileges even while they are still figuring out how to send in their agreement via snail mail. It is enough for the pile of agreements to be eventually consistent. Assuming you all trust the new committer, there is no need for a transaction where the receipt of the agreement must have occurred before they can be given access to the system -- as long as it's indicated that it can be withdrawn if they don't send in the agreement. In the mean time, yes, we need a web-based way of submitting agreements. I believe I have already mentioned once before that Google has a simple web form for individual contributors (http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html) and only requires a faxed signature for corporate contributors (where there are actual lawyers on the contributing side). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
