On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
And realistically, at this point, I'd like to find various ways that we can lesson it's impact within our existing framework. Which was really where this email started. Because if we can at least agree the chunk of code that parties believe has to be under the CLA we might provide some great places for people to collaborate, become involved in our community, and onboard more quickly outside of that.
Sean is suggesting that (possibly but for the bylaws) some categories of software could be usefully identified as clearly excludable from the CLA requirement. This is already happening today in a kind of de facto unofficial way, arguably, depending on how draconian the CLA requirement is assumed to be, and there's probably some concern over the propriety of this degree of flexibility introduced into the CLA system. There is to my knowledge no official or explicit subject-matter carveout for projects that don't have to opt in to the CLA system. What the bylaws say is that "The Foundation shall generally accept contributions of software made pursuant to" the CLAs. I don't recall the history of that word 'generally' but to me it can be read in two opposing ways ('as a general requirement, without exception' or 'in the general case, with some exceptions'). If it means 'without exception', and if 'the Foundation [accepting] contributions of software' is supposed to encompass all software development activities involving official OpenStack infrastructure, then I'm guessing the bylaws have never matched reality. I also think what Sean is suggesting is that one sensible line would be (or would have been) whether a project is, or is reasonably likely to become, part of an OpenStack release. - RF