search

CyberDiscovery / meta

This repository is for meta discussion of the Cyber Discovery Discord server.
https://discord.cyberdiscoverycommunity.uk
MIT License
8 stars 9 forks source link

Contributor License Agreements #11

Closed thebeanogamer closed 5 years ago

thebeanogamer commented 5 years ago

What are opinions on implementing a contributor license agreement enforced using CLA assistant?

On the one hand, it could help prevent situations where there are debates over things like code ownership, but it could also be seen as bureaucratic busy-bodying.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way, and I'd be interested to hear what people have to say. No changes are currently planned with regards to this.

teamshortcut commented 5 years ago

To me, it seems somewhat overkill, but I also don't have any particular objection to it if people wanted it.

Bottersnike commented 5 years ago

If anything shouldn't this be raised on any particular repositories that this applies to instead of this repository?

thebeanogamer commented 5 years ago

If anything shouldn't this be raised on any particular repositories that this applies to instead of this repository?

I'd argue that such a policy should be discussed here then rolled out to all repos, but as I say, this is purely a discussion, and I'm open to having my mind changed.

skiros-habib commented 5 years ago

The answer is obvious, you do git blame on the line of code and thats the owner /s

NicholasG04 commented 5 years ago

I'd argue that such a policy should be discussed here then rolled out to all repos, but as I say, this is purely a discussion, and I'm open to having my mind changed.

@thebeanogamer, I in fact totally disagree. The issues of code ownership are only important in certain repositories where there is mission critical code of high importance of which users are likely to want to reclaim ownership from. I'd therefore believe that it would be more appropriate to, in fact, discuss the addition of a CLA in such areas where issues are more likely to rise from code ownership.

I also believe that this is, as Mr Shorty said, ridiculously overkill in a situation where I personally find it unlikely for people to ever care about code ownership on such a small scale.

lightspeedana commented 5 years ago

I don't have a massive inclination either way, but I think @xxskiros is correct in git blame being a better solution than this, @teamshortcut is correct on it being somewhat complex and overkill.

NicholasG04 commented 5 years ago

Requesting this to be closed out of a lack of necessity and use? @CyberDiscovery/server-admin-team

teamshortcut commented 5 years ago

Closing for inactivity; if anybody has a strong opinion on it, it can be reopened.