As some may have been noticed, I started urging contributors more intensely to submit contributor forms before accepting their patches. I encourage all committers to do the same, for non-trivial changes.
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup, and thanks to Pat (Campbell) keeping track of all forms that we receive. So we (the committers) are now in a position to actually verify that we have a contrib form received before deciding whether or not to commit a patch.
Regards, Martin
Le dimanche 22 avril 2012 à 19:26 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup, and thanks to Pat (Campbell) keeping track of all forms that we receive. So we (the committers) are now in a position to actually verify that we have a contrib form received before deciding whether or not to commit a patch.
How about an electronic form? It's not like it's the first time this topic is discussed...
Thanks
Antoine.
Zitat von Philip Jenvey pjenvey@underboss.org:
On Apr 22, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup,
Where exactly is this listing?
It the asterisk ('*') shown next to the user's name, with the title text "Contributor form received".
Regards, Martin
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:14:58 +0200, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
Zitat von Philip Jenvey pjenvey@underboss.org:
On Apr 22, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup,
Where exactly is this listing?
It the asterisk ('*') shown next to the user's name, with the title text "Contributor form received".
I've been acting similar to Martin, for the same reason. It is now *really* easy to be considering a patch, see that the contributor you are having the discussion with doesn't have a * next to their name, and request that they submit a contributor agreement if they haven't already.
Pat updates the tracker promptly, and forms can be sent electronically (jpg image of signed form, pdf scan, etc), so the turnaround is now very quick, and you can pretty much(*) rely on the tracker status. That being the case I suppose it is now time for me to move to the next step and not apply (non-trivial) patches until the * appears.
--David
It is probably still the case that there are some long time contributors who do not have a * because their form submission predated Pat's management of the tracker status. For these we can either try to have Pat confirm the status against the paper files or, what is probably simpler, just have them send in a new form (which is less of a burden now that it can be done by email).
Thanks, David. It's nice to see that the PSF does sometimes manage to make things easier for the devs - without you the whole exercise would be pretty pointless!
S
On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:38 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:14:58 +0200, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
Zitat von Philip Jenvey pjenvey@underboss.org:
On Apr 22, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup,
Where exactly is this listing?
It the asterisk ('*') shown next to the user's name, with the title text "Contributor form received".
I've been acting similar to Martin, for the same reason. It is now *really* easy to be considering a patch, see that the contributor you are having the discussion with doesn't have a * next to their name, and request that they submit a contributor agreement if they haven't already.
Pat updates the tracker promptly, and forms can be sent electronically (jpg image of signed form, pdf scan, etc), so the turnaround is now very quick, and you can pretty much(*) rely on the tracker status. That being the case I suppose it is now time for me to move to the next step and not apply (non-trivial) patches until the * appears.
--David
It is probably still the case that there are some long time contributors who do not have a * because their form submission predated Pat's management of the tracker status. For these we can either try to have Pat confirm the status against the paper files or, what is probably simpler, just have them send in a new form (which is less of a burden now that it can be done by email). _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
As some may have been noticed, I started urging contributors more intensely to submit contributor forms before accepting their patches. I encourage all committers to do the same, for non-trivial changes.
You may wonder what changed between before and now: we (the PSF) now have a good management of the forms, thanks to them being listed in Roundup, and thanks to Pat (Campbell) keeping track of all forms that we receive. So we (the committers) are now in a position to actually verify that we have a contrib form received before deciding whether or not to commit a patch.
The devguide [1] currently says:
It’s unlikely bug fixes will require a Contributor Licensing
Agreement unless they touch a lot of code. For new features, it is
preferable to ask that the contributor submit a signed CLA to the
PSF as the associated comments, docstrings and documentation are
far more likely to reach a copyrightable standard.
Is this still the case? How about new features that are quite small? (e.g. http://bugs.python.org/issue14809 whose patch adds a few constants from a newer RFC)
If we are to require a signed agreement from smaller changes too, the devguide should be updated.
[1] http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html#contributor-licensing-agreem...
The devguide [1] currently says:
It’s unlikely bug fixes will require a Contributor Licensing Agreement unless they touch a lot of code. For new features, it is preferable to ask that the contributor submit a signed CLA to the PSF as the associated comments, docstrings and documentation are far more likely to reach a copyrightable standard.Is this still the case?
No. IANAL, but I think the proper requirement is that there must be some creative act in writing the code (such as naming an identifier). If the work is under copyright (which isn't up to the author to decide), then we need the form from the author.
How about new features that are quite small? (e.g. http://bugs.python.org/issue14809 whose patch adds a few constants from a newer RFC)
It's probably a border case, as anybody would have likely come up with roughly the same patch. Still, I would have put EungJun Yi into Misc/ACKS (for doing the research), and asked him for a contributor form.
If we are to require a signed agreement from smaller changes too, the devguide should be updated.
Will do!
Regards, Martin
participants (7)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Antoine Pitrou -
martin＠v.loewis.de
-
Petri Lehtinen -
Philip Jenvey -
R. David Murray -
Steve Holden