Tangent: Good rules for any software engineering team. Is there an "Apache Way" book? I recall there was?
On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 12:43 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > 1. Very much so. In Airflow we defined some criteria for becoming > committers and we separated out "code" and "community" contributions to > make it clear. > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/COMMITTERS.rst#code-contribution > Also what we made clear there that there are no "code/community" > contributors. You can do (and best if you do) both :). > > 2) I think this is a dangerous path to take. I think one of the important > aspects of Apache projects is how easy and friction-less it is to become a > contributor. Signing an ICLA can be very easily abused by "owners" of the > software to make it not really and truly open-source in spirit. There was > this interesting picture > https://twitter.com/higrys/status/1389979584737779717 which sparked some > short discussion about it. > > And while I agree Apache ICLA Is "fine", there are a lot of people who > treat any attempt to ask them to sign ICLA with default "no" or "i am not > going to read all those legal-speak" or "probably they want to trick me > into something". And for a good reason, because in many cases those ICLAs > might actually have some "interesting" clauses. > > I think if we ask people before they are invited to become committers to > sign the ICLA, this goes against this "frictionless" approach and it > immediately raises many questions: > > * what is the criteria deciding when we ask ? > * what happens if the contributor refuses? > * what do we answer if the contributor asks why we need it? > > I think the current approach where ICLA MUST be signed in order to become a > committer is great. With great powers come great responsibilities, and it > makes perfect sense that the ICLA should be signed then. I see no reason > why we should make the "committer" approval simpler. It brings no benefits > other than a couple of days delay and IMHO, inviting a committer is a thing > that SHOULD look serious and should be involving additional action from the > new committer-to-do. This makes sure that the new committer is aware about > the new powers/responsibilities coming with it. > > Side comment: If some projects have a very high bar to become committers, > maybe they should lower the bar rather than ask for ICLA from their > contributors ? > > J. > > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 2:58 AM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Looking at How it Works, I think it needs an update to reflect current > > thinking on community. > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#developers > > > > I believe there is consensus that contributors are not only developers > > with their hands on the code, but: > > people who ask and answer questions on the user and dev lists; > > people who find bugs and report them, with or without writing test cases; > > people who document the projects, including web and "hard copy" > documents; > > people who help organize meetups, both in real life and online. > > > > So perhaps we could add a section on "contributors" that covers the other > > categories of non-developer contributors? > > > > 2. I believe that we should ask contributors for an ICLA long before they > > are invited to become committers. > > > > Once a contributor has made several non-trivial contributions to a > > project, I believe that the project should ask them to file an ICLA if > they > > have not already done so. This will have these potential benefits: > > > > It will be much easier to make them committers; all it will take is for > > the PMC to hold a successful vote and as soon as they are invited and > > accept, the PMC can simply request their account. > > > > It will give the PMC incentive to communicate with their contributors > > about the value the contributors bring to the projects. Our increasing > use > > of GitHub for development makes this a straightforward exercise. Each PMC > > will have their own criteria for asking for an ICLA, which doubtless will > > be less stringent than committership. > > > > It will clarify the intellectual property issues (provenance) associated > > with the contributions. Some projects have a very high bar for > > committership and all of the contributions prior to formal offers of > > committership are assumed to be given under the terms of the Apache > > License, but we have no formal understanding of this. > > > > Craig > > > > Craig L Russell > > c...@apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > > > > > -- > +48 660 796 129 > -- Thank you, Matthew
