Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:17 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:14 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Summary:
> > The short version of the bug is that a non-trivial number of developers
> > cannot commit with an SoB line because their company has not yet reviewed
> > the new Gentoo Copyright GLEP, and so they lack company approval to
> attach
> > SoB lines or agree to the DCO.
> >
> > The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews the
> > new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the form of
> an
> > allowlist where specific identities (approved by some delegate of council
> > && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit for some period of
> time.
>
>
Apologies for my tardy reply.


> Don't you think that requiring approval for allowlist means double
> standards?  I mean, even if you assume that all requests would be
> granted, the requirement of approval provides for this 'delegate'
> selecting which developers are granted this privilege and which are not.
>

> In other words, I would rather suggest that the reprieve is granted for
> everyone and that the allowlist is maintained by Infra as part of opt-
> out hook intended to avoid developers accidentally missing the tag.
>

So basically this would be similar to the gentoo-dev-whitelist, where
anyone can do anything, but there is auditing?

I think this goes against my general feeling is that this is a *specific*
group of developers whom have raised a *specific legal problem* for their
contributions. Based on that I'm happy to grant them a reprieve on that
basis. I'm less happy to grant a reprieve to everyone; because its not
clear what the basis for the reprieve would be.


>
> > Proposal:
> > I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90
> > days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of
> accounts,
> > to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate.
> >
> > If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the
> > motion with any updated data.
>
> I'm confused.  This really reads like 'no extension; except we will vote
> on extension if necessary'.
>

There are no extensions in this proposal, but the proposal does not limit
the actions of the future board. So you read correctly, yes.


>
> > If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program
> > will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the
> > company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be
> > unable to accept commits from these developers on work time.
>
> Does this imply the reprieve will be granted only to the employees of
> one particular company, or will it extend to all developers in similar
> situation?  In the latter case, will the decision of one company affect
> the status of the reprieve for other developers?
>

Tying it back the first part of my reply, this proposal grants a specific
reprieve on a specific basis. If other people want reprieves based on other
basis's[0], I'm happy to listen to them.


>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>