From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:54:41 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:54:41 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <509A4EB1.2070506@v.loewis.de> <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > [...] > In order to deal with this, here is my proposal that should placate those > of us calling for a ban now and those that feel like there has not been > enough of a warning ((I can't communicate with him because I want him > banned and I personally don't get along with him even in person, so any > place where someone should talk to him it can't be me in the name of > fairness to the process): > > 1. Someone emails Anatoly to tell him he is on indefinite probation for > his behaviour where it is pointed out he can no longer insult anyone > (including the PSF), he can't re-open issues without an explicit solution > to the problem for why it closed, and in general has to just behave and not > be rude > > 2. We agree to point out to him nicely and calmly when he has screwed up > and overstepped his bounds while on this probation and to record when that > happened (an email here about any incident should be enough) so that he can > learn from his mistakes > > 3. If we do not see a pattern of improvement (this can be noticed by > anyone and I'm sure we can get a consensus on it; unanimity is not required > because that is impossible for anything with a group of our size), he gets > cut off from the resource he is abusing the most and those cut-offs will > continue on other locations if he does not improve there as well > > 4. If it goes as far as he is cut off and he manages to get the point and > behaves elsewhere he can be allowed back on to where he has been banned > after a year has passed (IOW he has to show actual improvement) > > Three key points in this proposal. One is that he gets an official > warning; no more side discussions with core devs, no more "does he know > people want to ban him" questions as it will be clear and explicit. He will > be flat-out told his attitude and actions are not acceptable as they stand > and they need to change. > > Two is that there is no time limit so that he doesn't just hide away for > e.g. six months, comes back, and then starts stirring up trouble while > saying he behaved within the allotted time that he had to. Any change needs > to be permanent and perpetuate forever. > > Three, the cut-offs are gradual per resource so that it isn't an > over-arching nuclear option. > > I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him > recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. > Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this message. I hope this is official enough. We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was indeed invalid); 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar suggestion) already came up a few times here). Best Regards, Ezio Melotti > But even if people don't like the explicit steps as I have outlined them > as a general rule, someone who doesn't want him banned should tell him > flat-out that he is on thin ice as I am an admin for python-ideas and this > plan is what I will institute starting January 1 for that list and he is on > the top of the list of people who will be in trouble if their attitude does > not change (I am about to email Titus about drafting up a CoC for > python-ideas so that this applies to everyone, not just Anatoly). > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoller at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:06:08 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 12:06:08 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <509A4EB1.2070506@v.loewis.de> <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <39E6C152-ECEC-47A4-A60B-795A8D1A2852@gmail.com> On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> [...] >> In order to deal with this, here is my proposal that should placate those of us calling for a ban now and those that feel like there has not been enough of a warning ((I can't communicate with him because I want him banned and I personally don't get along with him even in person, so any place where someone should talk to him it can't be me in the name of fairness to the process): >> >> 1. Someone emails Anatoly to tell him he is on indefinite probation for his behaviour where it is pointed out he can no longer insult anyone (including the PSF), he can't re-open issues without an explicit solution to the problem for why it closed, and in general has to just behave and not be rude >> >> 2. We agree to point out to him nicely and calmly when he has screwed up and overstepped his bounds while on this probation and to record when that happened (an email here about any incident should be enough) so that he can learn from his mistakes >> >> 3. If we do not see a pattern of improvement (this can be noticed by anyone and I'm sure we can get a consensus on it; unanimity is not required because that is impossible for anything with a group of our size), he gets cut off from the resource he is abusing the most and those cut-offs will continue on other locations if he does not improve there as well >> >> 4. If it goes as far as he is cut off and he manages to get the point and behaves elsewhere he can be allowed back on to where he has been banned after a year has passed (IOW he has to show actual improvement) >> >> Three key points in this proposal. One is that he gets an official warning; no more side discussions with core devs, no more "does he know people want to ban him" questions as it will be clear and explicit. He will be flat-out told his attitude and actions are not acceptable as they stand and they need to change. >> >> Two is that there is no time limit so that he doesn't just hide away for e.g. six months, comes back, and then starts stirring up trouble while saying he behaved within the allotted time that he had to. Any change needs to be permanent and perpetuate forever. >> >> Three, the cut-offs are gradual per resource so that it isn't an over-arching nuclear option. >> >> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. > > Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this message. I hope this is official enough. > > We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: > 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); > 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was indeed invalid); > 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar suggestion) already came up a few times here). > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti > All of this is moot; we have a new admin; we are working towards electronic signatures, but it uses the same CLA as before; the terms and licenses are not different. If he refuses to sign and send in the current CLA then that's his choice, and his contributions will not be included. If he has specific legal concerns about the CLA backed by legal standing, he can send them to psf at python.org and we will have legal counsel review them. > >> But even if people don't like the explicit steps as I have outlined them as a general rule, someone who doesn't want him banned should tell him flat-out that he is on thin ice as I am an admin for python-ideas and this plan is what I will institute starting January 1 for that list and he is on the top of the list of people who will be in trouble if their attitude does not change (I am about to email Titus about drafting up a CoC for python-ideas so that this applies to everyone, not just Anatoly). > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 20:03:12 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:03:12 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: <39E6C152-ECEC-47A4-A60B-795A8D1A2852@gmail.com> References: <509A4EB1.2070506@v.loewis.de> <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> <39E6C152-ECEC-47A4-A60B-795A8D1A2852@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: > 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that > wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); > 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't > follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while > he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was > indeed invalid); > 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of > http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used > instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar > suggestion) already came up a few times here). > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti > > > All of this is moot; we have a new admin; we are working towards > electronic signatures, > That's good news. > but it uses the same CLA as before; the terms and licenses are not > different. > > If he refuses to sign and send in the current CLA then that's his choice, > and his contributions will not be included. > > IIUC he's also saying that a CLA doesn't necessarily require to be linked to one or more external licenses, i.e. you can agree to contribute under the terms of the CLA alone and that should be enough. The Google individual CLA seems to do this. The problem with linking to external licenses is that *in theory* it requires you (and him) to read, understand, and accept their terms before putting your signature on the agreement. In practice people are too lazy to do it and/or they don't care, so the only common problem is that contributors don't know which one to pick and ask you if you can lend them a coin to flip. So, unless there's some specific reason preventing it, it should be possible to simplify our CLA and make it "self-contained" so that contributors can easily understand what they are signing (IANAL, but it seems to work for Google). > If he has specific legal concerns about the CLA backed by legal standing, > he can send them to psf at python.org and we will have legal counsel review > them. > > I think the problem (or one of the problems) is that the Apache license ( http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php) requires that, among other things, "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files". I'm not sure if we are doing this, if we really are required to do it, and what are the implications if we don't do it. These are probably questions that a lawyer should answer (but OTOH contributors should be able to understand it without being lawyers themselves). Also note that these issues are somewhat orthogonal. Electronic signatures a simpler CLA are about improving and simplifying the process, while the issues with the Apache license could be an actual problem (that might be solved if the external licenses are removed by the CLA). The combination of the two issues is probably making him uncomfortable about signing, even if he stated that we are free to use his patches on the bug tracker as we wish (but we can't without contribution form -- unless they are trivial). IOW, from his point of view, he is willing to contribute, but before doing so he has to sign the contributor form. Since he wants to understand what he is signing (and this is not an unreasonable request), he also has to read and understand the linked licenses, and because there are parts of them that are not yet clear to him, he is reluctant about signing. (Disclaimer: the views expressed in this and some of the others email I wrote solely represent my understanding of the issues, and do not necessarily represent the actual views of anatoly.) Best Regards, Ezio Melotti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoller at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 20:28:30 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:28:30 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <509A4EB1.2070506@v.loewis.de> <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> <39E6C152-ECEC-47A4-A60B-795A8D1A2852@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6585B13A-0060-4BAC-8763-F8149C50138A@gmail.com> On Jan 1, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: >>> 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); >>> 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was indeed invalid); >>> 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar suggestion) already came up a few times here). >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Ezio Melotti >> >> All of this is moot; we have a new admin; we are working towards electronic signatures, > > That's good news. > >> but it uses the same CLA as before; the terms and licenses are not different. >> If he refuses to sign and send in the current CLA then that's his choice, and his contributions will not be included. > > IIUC he's also saying that a CLA doesn't necessarily require to be linked to one or more external licenses, i.e. you can agree to contribute under the terms of the CLA alone and that should be enough. The Google individual CLA seems to do this. > The problem with linking to external licenses is that *in theory* it requires you (and him) to read, understand, and accept their terms before putting your signature on the agreement. In practice people are too lazy to do it and/or they don't care, so the only common problem is that contributors don't know which one to pick and ask you if you can lend them a coin to flip. > So, unless there's some specific reason preventing it, it should be possible to simplify our CLA and make it "self-contained" so that contributors can easily understand what they are signing (IANAL, but it seems to work for Google). Precisely. None of us are lawyers; the CLA was made by lawyers to be compatible with the Python license "stack" which has its own set of issues. That all said; again, the likelihood of short term alteration of the CLA is a non starter, so he can feel free to take his time to understand why we require contributions to be licensed to the PSF under the listed licenses. However; I've sent this to a real lawyer for his opinion. > >> If he has specific legal concerns about the CLA backed by legal standing, he can send them to psf at python.org and we will have legal counsel review them. > > I think the problem (or one of the problems) is that the Apache license (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php) requires that, among other things, "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files". I'm not sure if we are doing this, if we really are required to do it, and what are the implications if we don't do it. These are probably questions that a lawyer should answer (but OTOH contributors should be able to understand it without being lawyers themselves). > I sent it to a lawyer. Note the CLA was designed by PSF legal counsel, to whom I have sent this thread. > Also note that these issues are somewhat orthogonal. Electronic signatures a simpler CLA are about improving and simplifying the process, while the issues with the Apache license could be an actual problem (that might be solved if the external licenses are removed by the CLA). The combination of the two issues is probably making him uncomfortable about signing, even if he stated that we are free to use his patches on the bug tracker as we wish (but we can't without contribution form -- unless they are trivial). > IOW, from his point of view, he is willing to contribute, but before doing so he has to sign the contributor form. Since he wants to understand what he is signing (and this is not an unreasonable request), he also has to read and understand the linked licenses, and because there are parts of them that are not yet clear to him, he is reluctant about signing. > (Disclaimer: the views expressed in this and some of the others email I wrote solely represent my understanding of the issues, and do not necessarily represent the actual views of anatoly.) If he signed it 1.5 years ago, the CLA has not changed. Ergo, I fail to see what the issue is today. > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 21:41:24 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:41:24 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: <6585B13A-0060-4BAC-8763-F8149C50138A@gmail.com> References: <509A4EB1.2070506@v.loewis.de> <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <1357073405.3335.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi Ezio, Le mardi 01 janvier 2013 ? 18:54 +0200, Ezio Melotti a ?crit : > > We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: > > 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost > (that wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); Yes, I think lost contributor agreements have already happened. > 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF > doesn't follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 > license (and while he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be > quite pointless if it was indeed invalid); If he believes that, he can still choose the Academic Free License instead. cheers Antoine. From g.brandl at gmx.net Tue Jan 1 21:57:31 2013 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:57:31 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him > recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. > > > Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this > message. I hope this is official enough. So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... Georg From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 22:49:07 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 23:49:07 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him >> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. >> >> >> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this >> message. I hope this is official enough. > > So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... > He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the issue from our previous conversation. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti P.S. somehow Gmail was sending HTML mails instead of plain text ones. I now changed it back to plain text -- apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused, and thanks to Trent for making me aware of the problem! :) > Georg > From brian at python.org Tue Jan 1 22:55:01 2013 From: brian at python.org (Brian Curtin) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:55:01 -0600 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >> >>> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him >>> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. >>> >>> >>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this >>> message. I hope this is official enough. >> >> So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... >> > > He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the > issue from our previous conversation. ...and? Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his actions? The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email about his behavior... From solipsis at pitrou.net Tue Jan 1 23:05:44 2013 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:05:44 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: <1357077944.3335.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello, Le mardi 01 janvier 2013 ? 15:55 -0600, Brian Curtin a ?crit : > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > >> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> > >>> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him > >>> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this > >>> message. I hope this is official enough. > >> > >> So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... > >> > > > > He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the > > issue from our previous conversation. > > ...and? > > Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his > actions? The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor > agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those > things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email > about his behavior... Well, he's now aware (with public recording thereof) of how we feel about his contributions. So if he doesn't amend his ways a little, we will be justified in taking action. Regards Antoine. From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 23:13:50 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 00:13:50 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>> >>>> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him >>>> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this >>>> message. I hope this is official enough. >>> >>> So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... >>> >> >> He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the >> issue from our previous conversation. > > ...and? > > Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his > actions? He does, and he is already trying to improve. We already discussed about the issue and how to solve it in our previous conversation (see http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2012-December/002307.html), so informing him about the probation only served to let him know the specific punishment(s) he might face. > The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor > agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those > things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email > about his behavior... I'm doing this via chat (I think it's better/more effective than emails), so sidetracking is not so unexpected (we even ended up discussing things that are completely unrelated after we clarified the important points). The discussion about the CLA started because he said that some of the "accusations" in the thread are not true -- in particular that "He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor agreement". I asked him why he hasn't signed it and if there was any problem with the contributor agreement, and so he replied. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti From g.brandl at gmx.net Tue Jan 1 23:18:52 2013 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:18:52 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References:

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: On 01/01/2013 11:13 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>>> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>>> >>>>> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him >>>>> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this >>>>> message. I hope this is official enough. >>>> >>>> So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... >>>> >>> >>> He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the >>> issue from our previous conversation. >> >> ...and? >> >> Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his >> actions? > > He does, and he is already trying to improve. We already discussed > about the issue and how to solve it in our previous conversation (see > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2012-December/002307.html), > so informing him about the probation only served to let him know the > specific punishment(s) he might face. Good, sounds like we did all we can now. >> The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor >> agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those >> things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email >> about his behavior... > > I'm doing this via chat (I think it's better/more effective than > emails), so sidetracking is not so unexpected (we even ended up > discussing things that are completely unrelated after we clarified the > important points). The discussion about the CLA started because he > said that some of the "accusations" in the thread are not true -- in > particular that "He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor > agreement". I asked him why he hasn't signed it and if there was any > problem with the contributor agreement, and so he replied. I still don't understand the CA issue: either he sent one some months back, and it got lost: then he can re-submit it. Or he thinks there is something wrong with it and it shouldn't be signed: then why did he do so in the first place (and frankly, why did nobody else (among them big corporations) find a cause for concern)? cheers, Georg From jnoller at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 23:25:19 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 17:25:19 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: <7A5FCB2D-5327-44B0-A081-CF12ED3C2EA8@gmail.com> On Jan 1, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>>> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>>> >>>>> I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him >>>>> recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this >>>>> message. I hope this is official enough. >>>> >>>> So, what was the reaction? That is the important thing to know... >>>> >>> >>> He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the >>> issue from our previous conversation. >> >> ...and? >> >> Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his >> actions? > > He does, and he is already trying to improve. We already discussed > about the issue and how to solve it in our previous conversation (see > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2012-December/002307.html), > so informing him about the probation only served to let him know the > specific punishment(s) he might face. > >> The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor >> agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those >> things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email >> about his behavior... > > I'm doing this via chat (I think it's better/more effective than > emails), so sidetracking is not so unexpected (we even ended up > discussing things that are completely unrelated after we clarified the > important points). The discussion about the CLA started because he > said that some of the "accusations" in the thread are not true -- in > particular that "He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor > agreement". I asked him why he hasn't signed it and if there was any > problem with the contributor agreement, and so he replied. > So, he still refuses to sign it; or he will sign it? > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From ezio.melotti at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 23:37:29 2013 From: ezio.melotti at gmail.com (Ezio Melotti) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 00:37:29 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References:

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > > I still don't understand the CA issue: either he sent one some months back, > and it got lost: then he can re-submit it. Apparently he did and it got lost, and I hope he will resubmit it again now. > Or he thinks there is something > wrong with it and it shouldn't be signed: then why did he do so in the first > place I think someone managed to convince him that it was at least "acceptable". I.e., the CLA still has some problems and/or parts that are not 100% clear to him, and he would like to see these problems addressed and solved, but in the meanwhile he can make a compromise and sign it anyway if it's necessary. > (and frankly, why did nobody else (among them big corporations) find a > cause for concern)? Because usually no one spends time reading and understanding all the fine prints and signs it because "if everyone else signed it, it can't be too wrong/bad". Indeed this shouldn't happen to big corporations, but it might also be that they failed to recognize the problem or they didn't care because it didn't affect them directly. Of course it could also be a misunderstanding of the license terms from his part, but in this case he would probably want a clarification. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti > > cheers, > Georg > From ncoghlan at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 23:37:30 2013 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:37:30 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References:

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: One note on the CLA issue - Allison Randall spent some time discussing the CLA in person with Anatoly at the PyCon US 2011 sprints, so he may have signed it then. As I understand it, the CLA itself gives the PSF the rights it needs to redistribute under a different licence, while the accompanying licence covers other aspects (like patent rights and assertions of provenance). There are certainly simpler schemes in the world, but our current one isn't *that* complicated (although an explicit official explanation wouldn't hurt). Cheers, Nick. -- Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neologix at free.fr Tue Jan 1 23:39:08 2013 From: neologix at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Charles=2DFran=E7ois_Natali?=) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 23:39:08 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: Am I the only one feeling uncomfortable about having such a discussion take place on a public mailing list? I mean, we're debating whether to ban him from the tracker/mailing lists, but to me, this whole thread is much more harmful than any other action we could take. Imagine what will happen when his friends/boss/prospective employer will google him: how would you feel if this kind of thread showed up out there on the internet when searching your name? I'm all for open mailing lists and archives when it comes to development/security/community, but here it's really a personal issue, and I think it should be handled privately (by who is another debate). cf From michael at voidspace.org.uk Tue Jan 1 23:55:27 2013 From: michael at voidspace.org.uk (Michael Foord) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:55:27 +0000 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: <95ECB61D-91D8-4B81-B8D9-1FF8BADA177E@voidspace.org.uk> On 1 Jan 2013, at 22:39, Charles-Fran?ois Natali wrote: > Am I the only one feeling uncomfortable about having such a discussion > take place on a public mailing list? > I mean, we're debating whether to ban him from the tracker/mailing > lists, but to me, this whole thread is much more harmful than any > other action we could take. > Imagine what will happen when his friends/boss/prospective employer > will google him: how would you feel if this kind of thread showed up > out there on the internet when searching your name? > I'm all for open mailing lists and archives when it comes to > development/security/community, but here it's really a personal issue, > and I think it should be handled privately (by who is another debate). I don't think a "private committee" (secret cabal) that decides if people should be banned from our infrastructure would be an improvement. On the other hand if we do formalise these procedures then how these decisions get made in the future can be set out. Michael > > cf > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Jan 2 00:02:06 2013 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:02:06 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <08E61C8D-F36E-4AB0-8BE0-E3C57746D030@langa.pl> <75b44c1a96f6a4f04db5c2e6afc43d11.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net>

Message-ID: <1357081326.3335.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Le mardi 01 janvier 2013 ? 23:39 +0100, Charles-Fran?ois Natali a ?crit : > Am I the only one feeling uncomfortable about having such a discussion > take place on a public mailing list? > I mean, we're debating whether to ban him from the tracker/mailing > lists, but to me, this whole thread is much more harmful than any > other action we could take. > Imagine what will happen when his friends/boss/prospective employer > will google him: how would you feel if this kind of thread showed up > out there on the internet when searching your name? > I'm all for open mailing lists and archives when it comes to > development/security/community, but here it's really a personal issue, > and I think it should be handled privately (by who is another debate). I think personal issues in a community are always community issues. It is as much a discussion of how we value, appreciate and judge people, as a question of whether Anatoly's behaviour should be stopped. Also, I tend to think the "what will happen when XXX googles him" argument is a fallacy: if someone is participating publicly in an online community, outsiders can inevitably judge them on the quality of their participation. It is much too late to do anything against that, since there are many public records of our interactions with Anatoly. My 2 cents. Regards Antoine. From barry at python.org Wed Jan 2 00:55:33 2013 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:55:33 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution In-Reply-To: <1357073405.3335.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References:

<01BB2D44-15E1-4006-82D0-F0B27D688B78@langa.pl> <50DAA8E8.5000900@udel.edu> <20121226132824.26C762500B5@webabinitio.net> <1357073405.3335.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20130101185533.14f90549@limelight.wooz.org> On Jan 01, 2013, at 09:50 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >Yes, I think lost contributor agreements have already happened. In fact, my original one was lost. I submitted a new one a few Pycons back. -Barry From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 10:06:09 2013 From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:06:09 -0800 Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion Message-ID: I was testing whether Rietveld could be used to review a devguide patch, and I accidentally created this server-side clone: http://hg.python.org/cjerdonek/sandbox-devguide/ Is there a way for me to remove it, or does someone else need to do it? In addition, if "Remote hg repo" URLs on the issue tracker don't need to be on hg.python.org, the following one can also be deleted (I was confusing this with the restriction for custom builders): http://hg.python.org/sandbox/cjerdonek-devguide/ Thanks, --Chris From solipsis at pitrou.net Wed Jan 9 10:30:55 2013 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:30:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> Hi, > I was testing whether Rietveld could be used to review a devguide > patch, and I accidentally created this server-side clone: > > http://hg.python.org/cjerdonek/sandbox-devguide/ > > Is there a way for me to remove it, or does someone else need to do > it? In addition, if "Remote hg repo" URLs on the issue tracker don't > need to be on hg.python.org, the following one can also be deleted (I > was confusing this with the restriction for custom builders): > > http://hg.python.org/sandbox/cjerdonek-devguide/ I (or Georg :-))'ll take a look. We actually have a script which deletes unused clones, but I've been wary of putting it in a cron job, for fear that it might cause unwanted deletions. Regards Antoine. From victor.stinner at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 11:50:25 2013 From: victor.stinner at gmail.com (Victor Stinner) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:50:25 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion In-Reply-To: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> References: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> Message-ID: I also have various old repositories. Could you please remove the 2 following repositories? features/faster-format: work merged into cpython, issues #14716 and #14744 sandbox/split-unicodeobject.c: idea rejected after two discussions on python-dev mailing list -- sandbox/registervm must not be deleted: I'm still working on it. FYI I will present my work at FOSDEM in one month: http://python-fosdem.org/talk/10-two-projects-to-optimize-python Victor From g.brandl at gmx.net Wed Jan 9 17:23:08 2013 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:23:08 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion In-Reply-To: References: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> Message-ID: Am 09.01.2013 11:50, schrieb Victor Stinner: > I also have various old repositories. Could you please remove the 2 > following repositories? > > features/faster-format: work merged into cpython, issues #14716 and #14744 > sandbox/split-unicodeobject.c: idea rejected after two discussions on > python-dev mailing list > > -- > > sandbox/registervm must not be deleted: I'm still working on it. FYI I > will present my work at FOSDEM in one month: > http://python-fosdem.org/talk/10-two-projects-to-optimize-python Done. Georg From g.brandl at gmx.net Wed Jan 9 17:23:22 2013 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:23:22 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 09.01.2013 10:06, schrieb Chris Jerdonek: > I was testing whether Rietveld could be used to review a devguide > patch, and I accidentally created this server-side clone: > > http://hg.python.org/cjerdonek/sandbox-devguide/ > > Is there a way for me to remove it, or does someone else need to do > it? In addition, if "Remote hg repo" URLs on the issue tracker don't > need to be on hg.python.org, the following one can also be deleted (I > was confusing this with the restriction for custom builders): > > http://hg.python.org/sandbox/cjerdonek-devguide/ I've removed both repositories. Georg From g.brandl at gmx.net Wed Jan 9 17:30:14 2013 From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:30:14 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] server-side clones for deletion In-Reply-To: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> References: <8ca0e41f8264ccd9ec3a5925f87d073a.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> Message-ID: Am 09.01.2013 10:30, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: > > Hi, > >> I was testing whether Rietveld could be used to review a devguide >> patch, and I accidentally created this server-side clone: >> >> http://hg.python.org/cjerdonek/sandbox-devguide/ >> >> Is there a way for me to remove it, or does someone else need to do >> it? In addition, if "Remote hg repo" URLs on the issue tracker don't >> need to be on hg.python.org, the following one can also be deleted (I >> was confusing this with the restriction for custom builders): >> >> http://hg.python.org/sandbox/cjerdonek-devguide/ > > I (or Georg :-))'ll take a look. We actually have a script which deletes > unused clones, but I've been wary of putting it in a cron job, for fear > that it might cause unwanted deletions. I've now also removed the following repos, which were "stale" by our definition (no changes made since their clone for several months): * alphavirgo/cpython/ * features/bithinpy/ * default/repo/ * features/pep-380/ * sandbox/tkdocs/ * sandbox/distutils2/ I've kept three sandbox/ repositories that are stale, but have known core-dev owners From brian at python.org Sat Jan 12 18:11:41 2013 From: brian at python.org (Brian Curtin) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:11:41 -0600 Subject: [python-committers] MSDN subscriptions - new or renew In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Brian Curtin wrote: > Hi all, > > Before we begin: please respond directly to me. > > I've gotten a few requests for MSDN subscription renewals, so I may as > well do a big call out to try and do this as a big group to make it > easier on MS. If you're due/overdue for a renewal, send me the email > address you use to login and the Subscriber ID -- this is found at > https://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/manage/ when you're logged > in. > > If you do not currently have an MSDN subscription but are interested, > Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center provides our contributors > with free MSDN subscriptions to allow you to get OS and Visual Studio > installers/licenses. Please provide the following information if > you're interested: > > First Name: > Last Name: > Email Address: > Project/Company: Python Software Foundation > Complete Mailing Address: > Phone Number: > > > Since the Microsoft employee who helps us with this is unlikely to > respond right away due to the holidays, I'm going to gather up details > and send them on 2 January, 2013. > > After he responds, it typically takes one week before you receive login details. > > Brian FYI: I heard back from Microsoft that they've processed all of the requests. Keep an eye on your spam folder as some people have seen the account details end up there. It usually takes a week or so for you to receive your details. Let me know too long goes by without receiving anything and I'll look into it. From doko at debian.org Sun Jan 27 20:53:36 2013 From: doko at debian.org (Matthias Klose) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:53:36 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] how to run hg touch automatically? Message-ID: <510585C0.50406@debian.org> I was looking at patches found in some cross-build related issues, working around building pgen during a cross build. However it looks like this can be solved by just getting the timestamps for the dependencies right, which is already done for some files. So this should be done for the the GRAMMAR files too. Would this be ok for the 3.3 branch and trunk? Then, how and when is this command run, so that you always have the correct time stamps? is it hg pull && hg update && make -f Makefile.pre.in touch? Would it be worthwhile to have a shell script python_update which just does this (idea comes from GCC's contrib/gcc_update script)? Matthias -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: hgtouch.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 1053 bytes Desc: not available URL: From storchaka at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 18:43:50 2013 From: storchaka at gmail.com (Serhiy Storchaka) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:43:50 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement Message-ID: Several contributor agreement were send last months and wait for accepting. Ben Morgan (Ben.Morgan) http://bugs.python.org/issue12004 Zack Weinberg (zwol) http://bugs.python.org/issue16624 Robert Xiao (nneonneo) http://bugs.python.org/issue17051 Ramchandra Apte (ramchandra.apte) /I'm not sure about the legitimacy of this agreement./ Can anyone speed up the process of accepting this forms? Can I commit proposed patches without waiting for a "contributor flag" at the user name? From jnoller at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 18:45:18 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:45:18 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just sent email to Ewa, the psf Admin to verify she has copies of these. On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > Several contributor agreement were send last months and wait for accepting. > > Ben Morgan (Ben.Morgan) http://bugs.python.org/issue12004 > Zack Weinberg (zwol) http://bugs.python.org/issue16624 > Robert Xiao (nneonneo) http://bugs.python.org/issue17051 > Ramchandra Apte (ramchandra.apte) /I'm not sure about the legitimacy of > this agreement./ > > Can anyone speed up the process of accepting this forms? Can I commit > proposed patches without waiting for a "contributor flag" at the user name? > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org (mailto:python-committers at python.org) > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From kbk at shore.net Mon Jan 28 18:53:10 2013 From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:53:10 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Contributor Agreement - David Lam Message-ID: <1359395590.1435.140661183430629.63FFA0AE@webmail.messagingengine.com> We received a contributor agreement by postal mail David Lam 211 E. Meadow Dr Palo Alto CA 94306 d at dlam.me I've added it to the local paper files KBK From rdmurray at bitdance.com Mon Jan 28 18:59:54 2013 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:59:54 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Contributor Agreement - David Lam In-Reply-To: <1359395590.1435.140661183430629.63FFA0AE@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1359395590.1435.140661183430629.63FFA0AE@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20130128175954.5DD5E2500B4@webabinitio.net> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:53:10 -0500, "Kurt B. Kaiser" wrote: > We received a contributor agreement by postal mail > > David Lam > 211 E. Meadow Dr > Palo Alto CA 94306 > > d at dlam.me > > I've added it to the local paper files I've updated his tracker entry to reflect receiving the form as of today's date. --David From stefan at bytereef.org Mon Jan 28 19:05:21 2013 From: stefan at bytereef.org (Stefan Krah) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:05:21 +0100 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130128180521.GA18615@sleipnir.bytereef.org> Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > Robert Xiao (nneonneo) http://bugs.python.org/issue17051 The patch is trivial, so you can commit without an agreement. Stefan Krah From jnoller at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 19:08:12 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:08:12 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9959C69B4E9C45A6BBB96591BB9B28D1@gmail.com> On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > Several contributor agreement were send last months and wait for accepting. > > Ben Morgan (Ben.Morgan) http://bugs.python.org/issue12004 Received by the PSF Admin > Zack Weinberg (zwol) http://bugs.python.org/issue16624 Not received by the PSF Admin; please resend their forms to contributors at python.org? > Robert Xiao (nneonneo) http://bugs.python.org/issue17051 Received by the PSF Admin > Ramchandra Apte (ramchandra.apte) /I'm not sure about the legitimacy of > this agreement./ Received by the PSF Admin > > Can anyone speed up the process of accepting this forms? Can I commit > proposed patches without waiting for a "contributor flag" at the user name? > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org (mailto:python-committers at python.org) > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers From rdmurray at bitdance.com Mon Jan 28 20:33:21 2013 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:33:21 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement In-Reply-To: <9959C69B4E9C45A6BBB96591BB9B28D1@gmail.com> References: <9959C69B4E9C45A6BBB96591BB9B28D1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130128193321.D87D2250BC1@webabinitio.net> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:08:12 -0500, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > > Several contributor agreement were send last months and wait for accepting. > > > > Ben Morgan (Ben.Morgan) http://bugs.python.org/issue12004 > Received by the PSF Admin > > > Zack Weinberg (zwol) http://bugs.python.org/issue16624 > > Not received by the PSF Admin; please resend their forms to > contributors at python.org? > > > Robert Xiao (nneonneo) http://bugs.python.org/issue17051 > > Received by the PSF Admin > > Ramchandra Apte (ramchandra.apte) /I'm not sure about the legitimacy of > > this agreement./ > > Received by the PSF Admin Will Ewa be updating the tracker, or do we need to create a new procedure for that? I checked two: Xiao had a date entered but it still said 'no' to form received, so I made it 'yes'. zwol didn't have anything entered when I checked, so I stopped checking and am asking this question :) --David From petri at digip.org Mon Jan 28 20:47:36 2013 From: petri at digip.org (Petri Lehtinen) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:47:36 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Pending contributor agreement In-Reply-To: <20130128193321.D87D2250BC1@webabinitio.net> References: <9959C69B4E9C45A6BBB96591BB9B28D1@gmail.com> <20130128193321.D87D2250BC1@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <20130128194736.GA17871@chang> R. David Murray wrote: > Will Ewa be updating the tracker, or do we need to create a new > procedure for that? I sent a batch of 15 forms last October, and at least then she updated the tracker herself a few weeks later.