On 06/12/2014 11:46 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Thu 12 Jun 2014 08:04:48 AM PDT, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
FWIW, I expect the infra team are unlikely to make these changes in the short term because the change would automatically happen as part of a switch to the DCO, whereas trying to implement the change with our current CLA system would actually require a bunch of additional work.
Just to clarify, removing the committer == foundation's individual member is not simply a gerrit issue and I think requires deeper thoughts. We have a couple of other processes that are built around that assumption and changing those will require changes, whether we switch to DCO or not. Voting for PTL and TC elections are examples of such processes. Another thing that may be impacted by the removal of constraint are the free invitations to Design Summits, currently sent to 'ATCs' (defined in 3.b.i http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/).
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
One of the issues the TC is currently trying to address is a decrease in voter turnout for the TC elections [0]. If Foundation Membership is not required to contribute to the code base, then I feel that membership and the benefits of membership (ATC status and what that means) should be a well communicated opt-in process rather than a requirement of submitting a patch. Thank you, Anita. [0] Item 3: Election Stats and Review Discussion: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-06-03-20.03.html