search

JSFoundation / cla-assistant

Contributor License Agreement assistant (CLA assistant)
https://cla-assistant.io/
Apache License 2.0
9 stars 14 forks source link

Broken Link #7

Open skipjack opened 7 years ago

skipjack commented 7 years ago

Moving from webpack/webpack.js.org#1470 as I'm not sure where else this document would be edited/fixed...

Hi,

What happens now? The CLA agreement doesn't seem to link to the IP Policy correctly. It shows 

 [JS Foundation IP Policy]({{ site.url }}{{ site.baseurl }}/pdf/ip-policy.pdf).

What should happen? The CLA agreement should link to the correct IP policy. Googling shows this IP Policy -> JS Foundation

Could you guys please fix it? :)

Originally created by @maheshpec. Please advise if there's anything else we can do to help push this forward.

boneskull commented 7 years ago

This is a problem for Mocha too. cc @kborchers @aulvi

kborchers commented 7 years ago

Thanks for the ping @boneskull ... for some reason I didn't get a notification when this issue was created. I'll look into that and sorry for the no-response @skipjack! Please see https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/pull/2373 for an explanation on the delay in finding the right solution.

skeggse commented 7 years ago

@kborchers I'm not involved with JS Foundation, and don't know much about it. I'd like to respond to your comment on mochajs/mocha#2373:

In this case, it's the equivalent of a typo but the application doesn't know the difference so we are trying to formulate a procedure to make the change and migrate all of the signatures over to the "new" version with minimal (preferably no) impact to the projects.

This change strikes me as more significant than a typo. If I had not read the IP Policy document prior to signing the CLA, despite it being my obligation to do so, I would be concerned when my signature suddenly applies to a document I had not actually read and agreed to. It's possible I'm the only one with this concern, but I'd like to point out that being able to agree to a document that you're unable to access might be problematic, especially if that agreement truly applies to the inaccessible (or hard to locate) contents of the document.

(That last paragraph isn't very readable, but I'm exhausted. Please ask for clarification if that doesn't make sense.)

kborchers commented 7 years ago

@skeggse I definitely get the concern and we are working on the best path forward, asap