I'd like to re-frame the conversation on the practical effects that the current processes have on new contributors and work towards solutions. The problem is: One of the Foundation's objective is to help gain contributions from operators; current processes for contributing to OpenStack seem to be harming this objective. So far we have a proposal to - write a 'legal deed' for the CLA - keep a handy reassuring message to people 'afraid' of CLA's legalese I also see a consensus forming about the need to redefine/clarify the concept of ATC... On 04/22/2014 08:41 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I have to emphasize how unusual I believe this policy is. I have been trying to find some example of an open source project-related membership foundation (there aren't too many of these) with a similar policy, with no success. [...]
I see no major problem redefining (clarify) the concept of ATC and Individual Members but this deserves its own separate thread to investigate the ramifications.
Also, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Foundation might someday charge a fee for Individual memberships. If that ever happened, and the policy remained in place, I believe it would look really bad.
It would be so bad that it won't happen, realistically... it's as likely to happen as charging for downloads. Moving forward, maybe we should start discussing how we can split the ATC role from the 'plain' contributor role. I will take a shot at writing a 'license deed' to submit here for evaluation. Any other thoughts? /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org