| 1 |
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:14 -0400, 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 |
Don't you think that requiring approval for allowlist means double |
| 14 |
standards? I mean, even if you assume that all requests would be |
| 15 |
granted, the requirement of approval provides for this 'delegate' |
| 16 |
selecting which developers are granted this privilege and which are not. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In other words, I would rather suggest that the reprieve is granted for |
| 19 |
everyone and that the allowlist is maintained by Infra as part of opt- |
| 20 |
out hook intended to avoid developers accidentally missing the tag. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Proposal: |
| 23 |
> I propose the board grant this reprieve, for whitelisted accounts for 90 |
| 24 |
> days, with no extension. Williamh will supply the initial list of accounts, |
| 25 |
> to be reviewed verbally by a board delegate and a council delegate. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If the company cannot return a decision in 90 days, we can revisit the |
| 28 |
> motion with any updated data. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm confused. This really reads like 'no extension; except we will vote |
| 31 |
on extension if necessary'. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> If the company returns a decision before 90 days, the whitelist program |
| 34 |
> will be terminated (regardless of decision reached.) Note that if the |
| 35 |
> company decides that approval will not be granted, we will in effect be |
| 36 |
> unable to accept commits from these developers on work time. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Does this imply the reprieve will be granted only to the employees of |
| 39 |
one particular company, or will it extend to all developers in similar |
| 40 |
situation? In the latter case, will the decision of one company affect |
| 41 |
the status of the reprieve for other developers? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
Archives