Correct behavior of CLA

[ebullient]

Proposal

We have a draft of a CLA in place now.

I did just push updated text without a PR to test a build mechanic:

• We can keep a file in the top-level administrivia repo for projects that want to use a CLA:
  https://github.com/commonhaus/foundation-draft/blob/main/.github/project-cla.yaml

  This file lists the project (name and entity, not sure why OpenJSF has those as distinct things, I need to look at more examples and ask the lawyer.. maybe one of you know. For POC, I followed what they did) and an accompanying gist (owned by the commonhaus bot).

• I updated the GH Action here:
  https://github.com/commonhaus/foundation-draft/blob/main/.github/workflows/cla.yaml

  It iterates over all of the projects in that YAML file and creates a temporary file with the Project Name/Entity and the text of the (common) CLA. It then updates the specific gist with that content.

This means we can use common CLA text (reviewed approved collectively as policy) and have it applied per project (preferred by some employers: permission to work on one project does not imply permission to work on another).

Voting group

@commonhaus/founders

Consensus mechanism

Please use emoji reactions to indicate your support:

• 👍 (:+1:) if it looks good to you
• 👀 (:eyes:) if you're "ok" with it (it may not be your favorite)
• 👎 (:-1:) if you think this needs discussion first

Ask questions or raise concerns in comments.

[maxandersen]

I probabby missed it but why is it a DCO is not enough?

[ebullient]

@aalmiray ? You use a CLA with JReleaser..

[aalmiray]

Yes, yes I do. I went down the path of CLA because of 2 reasons:

1. I thought DCO had to be validated on every commit (I was wrong).
2. CLA states the flow of IP rights whereas DCO doesn't.

I knew at some point JReleaser might join a foundation and/or require a license change thus CLA was the better choice.

[ebullient]

Ok. I think it is clear here that I am not imposing a CLA requirement on projects.

I don't want to argue over why a project would choose to use a CLA, perhaps open another discussion for that? (General)

Mechanically, I think what I have works as a first pass / idea. We'll figure out the rest as we go through the bootstrapping phase.

One thing I don't know, Andres, is if it is possible to change the linked gist with cla-assistant without losing your history. I also don't know (off the top of my head) if it is possible to allow someone else to edit a gist. What I created above works for gists owned by the commonhaus bot user..

[aalmiray]

As far as I recall gists are backed by git repos and thus history should be available one way or another.

Now, who is allowed to edit a gist, have not look too much into it.

[ebullient]

we'll figure it out. ;)

[ebullient]

Closing for now, as we have something in place. Will revisit when we know more.