Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

Pulling this in (docs) plus the 23 PRs for all the plugins. On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Shazron wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-11916 proceeding with a docs PR. > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Shazron wrote: > >> Ok looks like

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-11916 proceeding with a docs PR. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Shazron wrote: > Ok looks like we have consensus. I'll add a section here: > http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/ and send a PR to the cordova-docs > repo for comment.

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

+1 On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Simon MacDonald wrote: > +1 to making it easier to allow people to contribute trivial changes. > > One thing Shaz just mentioned was adding a check box the the PR template so > that people can explicitly indicate their intent. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

+1 to making it easier to allow people to contribute trivial changes. One thing Shaz just mentioned was adding a check box the the PR template so that people can explicitly indicate their intent. Eventually it would be nice to be able to digitally sign the CLA. Simon Mac Donald

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

An easy definition of trivial IMO is "if they decide to pull this code away from us, is it not a big deal?" The reasons why the code needs to be pulled, who knows what lurks in the minds of lawyers. Typos, doc changes, one liners, are not a big deal usually. On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM,

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

+1 ~ Kerri > On Sep 13, 2016, at 12:27, Shazron wrote: > > Bump. There can't be lazy consensus on this. Before I potentially waste > time on drafting a proposal, trying to feel the temperature on this change. > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Shazron

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

So, it's basically the same system that we have now. I still think we should get clear intent from the author, since that's more useful and easy than determining whether it's trivial. I mean, isn't sending a PR through GitHub already clear intent? On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jesse

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

You decide per pr if you think it is trivial. @purplecabbage risingj.com On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Joe Bowser wrote: > I'll agree to this, since I don't know what the definition of trivial is > w.r.t. Apache. > > +1 > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jesse

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

I'll agree to this, since I don't know what the definition of trivial is w.r.t. Apache. +1 On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jesse wrote: > +1 > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Shazron wrote: > > > Bump. There

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

+1 @purplecabbage risingj.com On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Shazron wrote: > Bump. There can't be lazy consensus on this. Before I potentially waste > time on drafting a proposal, trying to feel the temperature on this change. > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Shazron

Re: [DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

Bump. There can't be lazy consensus on this. Before I potentially waste time on drafting a proposal, trying to feel the temperature on this change. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Shazron wrote: > It's up to us to decide, and right now we require the iCLA except for > trivial

[DISCUSS] Not requiring an iCLA for contributions

It's up to us to decide, and right now we require the iCLA except for trivial contributions. I want to change this to a more relaxed requirement: 1. Non-committers do not require an iCLA (you need one anyway to get an account, so that's really a non-issue) 2. Require a clear intent by the author