Community
Participate
Working Groups
As further described in [1][2], the Eclipse Foundation will undergo a major overhaul of our contribution recordkeeping. In particular, rather than requiring that committers ask the "3 questions" on every submission, we will ask contributors to agree to a contributor license agreement (CLA) once every couple of years. Once a contributor has a CLA in place, committers will be able to accept contributions from that individual. In support of this, the EMO will build a number of new automated processes to make sure that there is a significant decrease in the committer workload in accepting inbound contributions. These will include: 1. Automating the process of creating, accepting and filing a CLA from someone who wishes to provide contributions to Eclipse projects. 2. Implementing git triggers to reject any contribution where the author field does not match an existing CLA on file. 3. Providing Gerrit support so that there is a visible indicator for a contribution as to whether there is a CLA on file for the author. ...and so on
(In reply to comment #0) > As further described in [1][2] Oops. [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Architecture_Council/Meetings/February_14_2013#New_Topics [2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-architecture-council/pdfTFBLGJ8Tto.pdf
Note that there are times when a committer may be required to complete a CLA. For example, if someone is a committer on project A and they want to contribute code to project X, a CLA would likely be required. This would not apply to committers who are covered under a Member Committer Agreement. MCAs cover contributions to all projects. For committers who are covered under an Individual Committer Agreement, their Employer Consent Form may only authorize contributions to a single project. Unfortunately, we don't capture this in our database. So rather than requiring a manual check, it would be easier to simply ask any committer covered under an ICA who want to make a contribution to a project where they are not a committer to sign a CLA. I appreciate that it's additional paperwork, but I don't see an alternative if we want to completely automate this process.
Added 401335 as a dependency to this bug, it tracks the status of work on the PMI / Site_login side of things.
I've been capturing documentation/requirements for this in the wiki: http://wiki.eclipse.org/CLA The wiki is intended to reflect (as much as possible) the current state (the workflow examples are a little out of date at this moment; I'll update those later this morning); please continue discussions of the issues in this bug and its dependent bugs.
Note that our intent is to go live with using/enforcing CLAs for all projects using git as soon as possible after Kepler ships. This is looking like Monday, June 30th. We will be allowing people to register their CLAs beforehand. We'll be letting people know when that will go live soon.
(In reply to comment #5) > This is looking like Monday, June 30th. There is no such date. Target date is now Thursday, June 27th to go live.
(In reply to comment #5) > We will be allowing people to register their CLAs beforehand. We'll be > letting people know when that will go live soon. This will be going live in a few days.
Will it be possible to refer to patches in Gerrit when creating CQs? The current process requires a committer to pull from Gerrit, create a patch and then upload it.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
Current urgency is bug 414886 -- ie, 3 yr expiry.
We are victorious. Nothing left to do here.
