- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:25:06 -0600
- To: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
- Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "public-test-infra@w3.org" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Rebecca Hauck wrote: > > My only concern is around the CLA here. How are you planning to handle that? > > Good point. Since you're asking this question, I'll assume the CLA in the repo does not cover submissions to forks? I guess I assumed that it did. Or rather, I didn't think about it at all b/c I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems we're loosing part of the paper trail in the process you describe, also this happens within an GH organization that W3C doesn't control and which could go away. On a branding/discoverability perspective, I'm also not keen on seeing a testthewebforward org pop up on GH that wouldn't also be the canonical location of the testtwf-website repo, web-platform-tests repo, etc. As moving those repos would just be a major annoyance to everyone involved, I'm strongly opposed to this. If you absolutely must create a new org for this, please tie it to the CSS WG and not to Test the Web Forward. > What do you recommend? I see a few possible options: > Just have people sign the Grant of License form[1]. We've been doing this all along anyway. > Extend the CLA to cover forks (or at least just this one). More lawyers = more complicated? The problem is the paper trail here, not an extension of the CLA to forks. > Make the forked repo under the w3c github organization. Is it even possible to fork a repo into the same organization from which it originated? Would it then be covered by the CLA? It's not technically possible to fork a repo under the same org afaik. Have you considered using a separate branch on the same repo to receive GH contributions and merge that branch after the event? Would the Git / Hg bridge support that? --tobie
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 14:24:44 UTC