Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of wjamesjong@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.172 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Automate signed icla to git commits
From: James Jong <wjamesjong@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABiQX1Utrp5UAZm6APAB+U00vUq9f5sAEXi86sHn1ExQh6wTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:09:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B4113DF0-CEA2-4556-97B2-FAA47B8EEC76@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKP6k2sngMNwRnydhKBda2o8PijfF4hsCKODNyspKnpEdALksQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK_TSX+PTqKZHyfH1q9vBprVgcmM7vvj7XEoGziyOGqY+hfM3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEeF2TeaoaHUVpWv0ts_k-19DRZmQeH_Kz840pby2EaDCQf7SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABiQX1VR_7e4+6xsLb3gj+txWBtifQqx+NQgVn2QURJ_rGRPyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E37B2FBC-07AC-43CF-BF3F-1CD8CADF1E84@gmail.com>
 <CAKP6k2tVvcZAip-XqdRvS3NpuJHWeeSzzw7HQgUgHY4H4WWrrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7iHiiuPMQgoHOT8+1pN8jaejsN-hTWcWVZWsoiaQz9G=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABiQX1Xw79xzAYuA4FoShyshujsquDXru_DTForgBTC3U50DWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAS6=7hQC=GCV44daAZu5T877LzvqBg9Dxw+Ks0Lu8Sx_DeEYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABiQX1Utrp5UAZm6APAB+U00vUq9f5sAEXi86sHn1ExQh6wTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@cordova.apache.org

Agreed that it is working as intended.  It=92s also good to know that =
although Cordova=92s been requiring CLA=92s for it=92s contributions, it =
isn=92t a hard Apache requirement.  For some contributions I=92ve wanted =
to pull in, the CLA has been the holdup.  Thanks for the clarification.

-James Jong

On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:40 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> =
wrote:

> I'm pretty confident it's working as intended for now.
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey =
<marvin@rectangular.com>wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Interesting! Going by this description, it sounds like we wound't =
need
>>> ICLAs for the majority of pull requests since pull requests details =
get
>>> forwarded to the mailing-list.
>>=20
>> Legally, the party making the pull request implicitly asserts that =
they
>> have
>> the right to contribute the commits under the ALv2 section 5.
>>=20
>> However, if a release with infringing material escapes out into the =
wild,
>> having somebody to blame will be cold comfort.  Should the original
>> copyright
>> owner request that we cease distributing the offending release, =
Cordova's
>> users are going to be in a bad situation regardless.
>>=20
>>> New proposal: don't worry about CLAs at release time.
>>=20
>> The key here is that the Cordova PMC needs to be vigilant with every =
pull
>> request from somebody who has not signed a CLA or is otherwise =
well-known
>> to
>> be submitting clean IP.  The Cordova committer who accepts the pull =
request
>> and pushes to the ASF repo is the first line of defense.  However, =
the
>> rest of
>> the PMC is also collectively responsible for reviewing all commits.
>>=20
>> So the question is, how confident are you in the existing review =
process?
>> If
>> it's working as intended, then there's indeed no need to perform an
>> additional
>> audit at release time.  On the other hand if it's porous, then =
building in
>> more checks might be wise.
>>=20
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>=20