Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 06:29 -0500, Nick Coghlan a écrit :

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

...

What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?

I believe so (cc'ed Van to double check).

I know a digiital photograph is good enough for acceptance of a PSF nomination - is it enough for the contributor's agreement as well?

? I've never sent any photo to the PSF... (and I don't intend doing so)

Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the process is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation to do what it's doing, but we would love to do it more efficiently. But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a contributor agreement very simply.

However, specific ideas about how to action this request are also welcome. We certainly don't want to hold up development. Unfortunately we want encumbered code even less.

regards Steve

On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

Ok, so, since the PSF appears to have a meeting very soon, can I request that the PSF gets its act together and solves the "electronic contributor agreement" issue once and for all?

The way we core developers are prevented from working properly is **totally** unacceptable.

Thank you

Antoine.

Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 12:34 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :

...

Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

What is the process now? Is it a showstopper?

Yes.

Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit rights.

Otherwise, the PSF does not have the right to redistribute that code under the PSF license.

http://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#sign-a-contributor-agreement

...

-------- Message transféré -------- De: Pat Campbell <patcam@python.org> À: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> Cc: Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> Sujet: Re: [python-committers] Push rights for Ross Lagerwall Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:54:29 -0500

Hi All:

I have not received a contributor agreement for Ross Lagerwall yet. It maybe in transit at this point. However, if the need arises another can be sent directly to me at:

PSF c/o Pat Campbell 6306 Treetop Circle Tampa, Florida 33617

Thanks, Pat

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

   Absolutely no idea. Either very recently, or earlier.



   Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 11:07 -0500, Pat Campbell a écrit :

...

Hi All:

When should it have come in?

Thanks, Pat

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote: Pat should know if we have received one.

   regards
    Steve


   On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 00:57 -0800, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :

...

Do we have a signed contributor agreement?

I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did or not.

Regards

Antoine.

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org

   http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

-- Pat Campbell PSF Administrator/Secretary patcam@python.org

---

PSF-Members mailing list PSF-Members@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-members

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:00 -0500, Steve Holden a écrit :

...

But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a contributor agreement very simply.

That's like saying "anyone with access to a printer can send a patch via postal mail". Sorry, but we are in the 21th century now.

Print form, fill in form, sign form, take photo, upload photo, email photo isn't all that onerous a task.

Compared to setting up GPG (or something of that ilk), it's positively straightforward.

Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital signature technologies and their uncertain place in law.

Cheers, Nick.

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

Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 07:25 -0500, Nick Coghlan a écrit :

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Please don't blame the PSF for the inadequate state of digital signature technologies and their uncertain place in law.

What we *could* do though, is have a better explanation

No, sorry, that doesn't parse. We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole committers freely.

If e-commerce or PayPal is satisfied with a *totally automated Web process*, then the PSF shouldn't need *physical* paperwork with *manual approval*. That's all.

...

No, sorry, that doesn't parse. We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole committers freely.

While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret what "other projects do" as "doing it right".

They definitely do it right from a social perspective.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

...

...

No, sorry, that doesn't parse. We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole committers freely.

While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret what "other projects do" as "doing it right".

They definitely do it right from a social perspective.

And probably not from a legal perspective. Ask anyone who has tried to relicense a project and attempted to track down old willy nilly contributors, or been forced to got and get CLAs after the fact.

I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.

On 3/9/2011 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.

I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the most sensitive to such issues?

I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Are you saying the PSF shouldn't bother making sure the copyright to python is unencumbered?

Eric.

On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP rights", not mine.

As I have already pointed out in this thread, the PSF is not a "self-proclaimed" anything. It was established by Guido precisely to ensure that the IP was unencumbered. So Guido clearly thinks the rule is needed.

I think Jesse has pointed us to some very satisfactory potential solutions. I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Electronic forms are easier to deal with, but I seriously doubt their absence has lost as much development effort as the total collective developer time already expended on this thread :-)

regards Steve

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

Hello Steve,

...

...

I don't care and don't want to argue (I insist about this) about religions, be it christianism or intellectual property. If you think a legal rule is needed, please just *ensure it doesn't get in the way*. That's your job as a self-proclaimed "protector of IP rights", not mine.

As I have already pointed out in this thread, the PSF is not a "self-proclaimed" anything. It was established by Guido precisely to ensure that the IP was unencumbered. So Guido clearly thinks the rule is needed.

I would like to hear Guido's opinion today about this. Python's development is not the same as it was 10 years ago, and the world has changed too.

If anything, we need the forms more than 10 years ago. BUT unlike then it's acceptable to fill out a web form.

...

I think Jesse has pointed us to some very satisfactory potential solutions. I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

The reason I am making a mountain out of a slightly oversized molehill is that otherwise it seems people here don't care to solve the issue, and instead keep patronizing about how the current process is fine (which it is!... as long as it isn't actually applied...).

...

Electronic forms are easier to deal with, but I seriously doubt their absence has lost as much development effort as the total collective developer time already expended on this thread :-)

Well, I agree that not so much development effort has been lost because of us checking contributor agreements, but I think there's a reason, and you might not like it.

TBH I don't think that the implementation of the web form ought to be the PSF directors' job. However approval of this change in process and of the exact legal text that people agree to on the web form is. One of the developers or some other volunteer can do the implementation -- just don't make it live until the PSF's lawyer has approved the text. (Though if it was me I'd just copy the Google forms, scratch out Google, and write in Python in crayon.) Please do record which version of the form is agreed to.

As a temporary solution for new contributors, if you trust them, give them their permissions and ask them to fill the paperwork later (soon, but not as a condition for the permissions).

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

...

I completely agree with you - we have to make this process modern, and simple. We just disagree on if it's necessary or not.

I hate arguments from authority, but here's the 2010 breakdown of committers by changesets (thanks Mercurial :-)). Who do you think is the most sensitive to such issues?

Antoine; if you don't want the help - I don't need to help.

I really don't understand what all the fuzz is about. We have a two step process:

• Step 1

What the PSF initially needs is an acknowledgement of the contributor (committer or not) that he or she is willing to accept and enter into the agreement.

This can be done by checking a checkbox on the bug tracker, a comment on the tracker, an inline note in the patch, an emailed form, via IRC, etc.

The only important aspect in this step is to make the contributor aware of the requirement and get his/her agreement to follow up on it.

• Step 2

The paperwork can then be done as second step - in whatever way is legally needed.

The only important aspect with this second step is that the PSF does get to know about the new contribution. Since Pat is not following the checkins list, an email to her would be nice.

• Possible issues and solutions

If anything, I believe it's the legal form we require that's giving people second thoughts, not finding a fax machine or post box :-)

http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/

Or perhaps, they are not aware of the requirement at all, since the tracker doesn't mention it on the submission page:

http://bugs.python.org/issue?@template=item

A simple note like this on the tracker would go a long way:

""" Please be aware that we can only accept patches for Python if you are willing to sign a contributor agreement with the PSF (linked to the contrib forms).

The agreement is necessary in order for the PSF to be able to legally distribute your contribution together with the Python distribution. If you have questions, please write to contributor-agreement@python.org. """

contributor-agreement@python.org could be aliased to psf@python.org, pat@python.org, or even better, a PSF committee taking care of this business.

For new core committers, I believe that step 1 and 2 ought to really already have happened long before they even become core committers. After all, submitting code is one of the more important requirements we have for them, right ?

-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 09 2011)

...

...

Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::

eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

...

...

No, sorry, that doesn't parse. We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*. Nobody cares about explanations when most online projects accept patches and enrole committers freely.

While I agree with you that we need to do this better; don't interpret what "other projects do" as "doing it right".

They definitely do it right from a social perspective.

Another way of doing it right from a social perspective is to give someone commit privileges even while they are still figuring out how to send in their agreement via snail mail. It is enough for the pile of agreements to be eventually consistent. Assuming you all trust the new committer, there is no need for a transaction where the receipt of the agreement must have occurred before they can be given access to the system -- as long as it's indicated that it can be withdrawn if they don't send in the agreement.

In the mean time, yes, we need a web-based way of submitting agreements. I believe I have already mentioned once before that Google has a simple web form for individual contributors (http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html) and only requires a faxed signature for corporate contributors (where there are actual lawyers on the contributing side).

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*.

Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his signature on a piece of paper?

Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper. It's not exactly trailblazing, is it?

regards Steve

We received a contributor agreement from Boris Feld, Belfort, France by postal mail.

I will send it by postal mail to our Administrator.

I have not seen an agreement from Ross. If he sent one, I'd suggest he re-send it by attaching a scan to an email, given that it appears time is pressing. The Feld agreement took several weeks to wend its way to me.

KBK

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:46 -0500, " Martin v. Löwis " <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:

Am 10.03.11 00:45, schrieb Steve Holden:

...

On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

...

We don't need an explanation, we need a *solution*.

Please speak for yourself only. Is it just you being upset to have to use paper, or is Ross Lagerwall actively refusing to put his signature on a piece of paper?

Because Antoine is not entitled to include you in his "we" does not entitle you to put him in the singular. I doubt he is the only member who finds it difficult to understand why we are still using paper.

I'd still like to understand whether this issue actually blocks the case at hand. Antoine originally wrote

...

I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did or not.

So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. That would also be a *solution*.

Regards, Martin

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

...

I've told Ross it would be nice to send one if he hadn't already done so, but I have obviously no way of checking whether he did or not.

So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. That would also be a *solution*.

Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money where your mouth is.

I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF to solve paperwork.

Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 à 11:25 -0500, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :

...

...

So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. That would also be a *solution*.

Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money where your mouth is.

I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF to solve paperwork.

Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross wasn't that difficult.

Right, sending a mail isn't difficult. Do you volunteer to do the necessary work (sending emails, following up on them, etc.) each and every time the need for requesting and checking contributor agreements arises?

Thank you

Antoine.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:

On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 à 11:25 -0500, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :

...

...

...

So the next logical step would be to ask him. If Ross said that he did send the form, that would be good enough for me to proceed. That would also be a *solution*.

Martin, why don't you implement your solution yourself, if you think the process is not a problem? That would be a good way of putting money where your mouth is.

I'm obviously not going to do that work for you. I'm not paid by the PSF to solve paperwork.

Just for the record: neither am I. However, sending an email to Ross wasn't that difficult.

Right, sending a mail isn't difficult. Do you volunteer to do the necessary work (sending emails, following up on them, etc.) each and every time the need for requesting and checking contributor agreements arises?

Thank you

Antoine:

Your point will be more effectively made without this continual sniping at anyone who responds to you. That wasn't intended as a serious question, was it? UYou know Martin won't have time to do that.

As a matter of fact, though, the PSF has an administrator who is perfectly capable of doing just this if it's the best process we have, she just hasn't been involved in processing new developers in the past. So Pat should probably get involved in defining what the process is.

Let's work towards a solution, please.

regards Steve

I have spoken to Van Lindberg, and he and I will be driving/discussing the best approach for electronic CLAs/signing. We will drive this on a PSF level.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:

Fortunately this *can be discussed at the members' meeting. Since I don't always follow python-dev I wasn't aware this was blocking commits - the process is pretty straightforward as it is. Guido established the Foundation to do what it's doing, but we would love to do it more efficiently. But anyone with access to a fax machine or a scanner can submit a contributor agreement very simply.

However, specific ideas about how to action this request are also welcome. We certainly don't want to hold up development. Unfortunately we want encumbered code even less.

regards Steve

I've brought this up at board meetings in the past. Specific ideas even, and I have not received a very warm welcome. The quickest path? Don't roll our own, and use something like what RackSpace (a multi million dollar company and a large army of lawyers) uses for OpenStack:

https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=ABCZR72YX57B

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. We should *not* implement our own. There is also:

http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html

So, this is definite fodder for the members meeting this week. I believe we have an actionable path.

Jesse