| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Works for me, your examples from a. to f. looks good, but how do you |
| 4 |
> suggest the GLEP is to be updated so these become clear for everyone? |
| 5 |
> Talking about contributors, and final contribution committers (devs). |
| 6 |
> I could imagine a simple "examples" paragraph with your suggestion |
| 7 |
> written in it word-to-word. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'd rather not include that list of examples as part of the policy, |
| 10 |
but document it elsewhere where it can be more easily updated, without |
| 11 |
needing council and trustees for approval. For example, in the devmanual |
| 12 |
or on a wiki page. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The question to be answered for the policy is whether we loosen the real |
| 15 |
name requirement for everyone but the final committer, i.e. whether we |
| 16 |
allow case b). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The alternative would be to leave the policy as-is, under the assumption |
| 19 |
that most much contributions would fall back to cases d) or e). That is, |
| 20 |
no s-o-b line but the committer can certify the contribution under GCO |
| 21 |
point 2. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ulrich |
Archives