1 |
On 18-10-04 11:14:29, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> Summary: |
3 |
> The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers |
4 |
> cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed |
5 |
> the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to attach |
6 |
> SoB lines or agree to the DCO. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the |
9 |
> new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of an |
10 |
> allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council |
11 |
> && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of time. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Proposal: |
14 |
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90 |
15 |
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts, |
16 |
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the |
19 |
> motion with any updated data. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program |
22 |
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the |
23 |
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be |
24 |
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> As president, I will not vote on this motion, because I'm proposing it, so |
27 |
> a tie vote is possible. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Please vote on -nfp; a GPG signed mail is sufficient. |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
I vote to approve the proposed 90 day whitelist for developers approved |
33 |
jointly by council/trustees. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |