1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 02:26:43AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>> The "natural person" part was lost in this change. It also doesn't |
5 |
>> reappear in the added section below. I think we don't want any corporate |
6 |
>> entities there (or at least that's what I had taken from the previous |
7 |
>> "Sony" discussion). |
8 |
> Will re-add to the name section. |
9 |
|
10 |
> For this section, I had a further thought and feel this is cleaner: |
11 |
> to the commit message as a separate line. The sign-off must contain |
12 |
> -the committer's legal name as a natural person, i.e., the name that |
13 |
> -would appear in a government issued document. |
14 |
> +the contributor's name as discussed in the next section. |
15 |
|
16 |
Good point, and much better. (In fact, in the previous version I |
17 |
wondered why "Name" would have a capital letter, until I realized that |
18 |
it referred to the example above.) |
19 |
|
20 |
Also, with the new wording, you could say "contributor's name as a |
21 |
natural person" here, and leave the next section alone. Just as a |
22 |
suggestion, with no strong preference on my side. |
23 |
|
24 |
>> > +Contributor Name |
25 |
>> > +---------------- |
26 |
>> I just notice that it says "contributor" here while it is "committer" |
27 |
>> above. Not sure which is better, but maybe we should use the same word |
28 |
>> everywhere? |
29 |
> I think this might warrant a larger discussion. |
30 |
|
31 |
> The Kernel DCO is required for all patches, not just commits. |
32 |
|
33 |
> The GCO rev 1 text borrowed the same word: contribution. |
34 |
|
35 |
> Specifically the author of the contribution can easily be different from the |
36 |
> person committing it into a VCS. Contributors are a superset of committers. |
37 |
|
38 |
> At the same time, I've already seen developers ask contributors for a |
39 |
> sign-off, even when it's only the developer doing the commit; which isn't |
40 |
> required by the Gentoo policy as it's written today. |
41 |
|
42 |
Right, we require a signoff by the author for patches sent by e-mail, so |
43 |
presumably contributor is better. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Maybe this specific commit that changes "legal name" should stick to |
46 |
> "committer", which the explicit plan to make the text |
47 |
|
48 |
[Something seems to be missing from that sentence, but I believe I got |
49 |
the meaning.] |
50 |
|
51 |
Let's keep everything in one commit, because these changes are in the |
52 |
same section and are closely related. |
53 |
|
54 |
>> > +Contributors must sign off on contributions with a name that can be made |
55 |
>> > +public and would pass copyright due diligence. |
56 |
>> Suggestion: "with their name as a natural person" |
57 |
> Agreed & queued. Will incorporate after other discussion above is concluded. |
58 |
|
59 |
>> > +For revision 1.2, further thanks are extended to kuzetsa CatSwarm, |
60 |
>> > +Richard Freeman, John Helmert III, Ulrich Müller and Alec Warner. |
61 |
>> The authors thanking themselves would be very unusual in an |
62 |
>> acknowledgement. :) I suggest to just add John Helmert III to the |
63 |
>> existing list (keeping alphabetical order). All others are either |
64 |
>> authors or are already mentioned. |
65 |
> If I do that, the specific contributions of multiple parties already in the |
66 |
> author list are not acknowledged for this revision: rich0, antarus, ulm. |
67 |
|
68 |
> The new text was substantially written by myself, with the great suggestion |
69 |
> from kuzetsa, and then everybody else contributed good edits to it. |
70 |
|
71 |
So far we had followed the principle not to list authors in the |
72 |
acknowledgements (which is worded "the authors would like to thank"). |
73 |
If we start adding them for revision 1.2, then we'd have to add more |
74 |
names to the existing list. |
75 |
|
76 |
> If you're happy to not take extra acknowledgement that this was for Rev 1.2, |
77 |
> I'll just tweak it to add kuzetsa to authors and ajak to thanks list. |
78 |
|
79 |
Please do. CCing rich0 and antarus, are you happy with this? |
80 |
|
81 |
Another small point: Whitespace in the new section doesn't follow the |
82 |
style in the rest of the GLEP, which uses two blank lines before and one |
83 |
blank line after section headings, as well as two spaces at the end of |
84 |
every sentence. (This is also what GLEP 2 says.) |
85 |
|
86 |
Ulrich |