On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 08:15, Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com> wrote:
- Any other issue I didn't think of?

If nobody has strong objections or raised any issues, I plan to get this started and set up during Core sprint in a couple weeks.

While I wouldn't expect them to object (since the proposal will save them a currently manual step), it would be worth checking directly with Ewa and Betsy on the PSF staff (as I believe they're the ones that handle the eSign -> bugs.python.org step in the current process).

Beyond that, my main concern would be the one Berker raised: the fact that we allow reviewers to waive the CLA requirement for contributions that don't meet the standard of being copyrightable (most notably, typo fixes), is a feature, not a bug.

That said, a usability regression for more casual fixes may be worth the trade-off when the pay-off is a major usability improvement for absolutely every one involved in bringing new contributors up to the level where we can accept more substantial contributions from them.

You'll also want to talk to Ernest (PSF Infrastructure director) about either automating the periodic export of the csv file with all the CLA signatories, or else running the PSF's own instance of the service (which may also provide some more freedom in making the check advisory rather than strictly enforced).


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia