Clarified to exclude corporations.On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Robin H Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 02:26:43AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
The "natural person" part was lost in this change. It also doesn'tWill re-add to the name section.
reappear in the added section below. I think we don't want any corporate >> entities there (or at least that's what I had taken from the previous
"Sony" discussion).
Done.For this section, I had a further thought and feel this is cleaner:
to the commit message as a separate line. The sign-off must contain
-the committer's legal name as a natural person, i.e., the name that
-would appear in a government issued document.
+the contributor's name as discussed in the next section.
Good point, and much better. (In fact, in the previous version I
wondered why "Name" would have a capital letter, until I realized that
it referred to the example above.)
Also, with the new wording, you could say "contributor's name as a
natural person" here, and leave the next section alone. Just as a
suggestion, with no strong preference on my side.
How's the clarification now, making it clear those are the authors forThe new text was substantially written by myself, with the great suggestion from kuzetsa, and then everybody else contributed good edits to it.
So far we had followed the principle not to list authors in the acknowledgements (which is worded "the authors would like to thank").
If we start adding them for revision 1.2, then we'd have to add more
names to the existing list.
If you're happy to not take extra acknowledgement that this was for Rev 1.2,Please do. CCing rich0 and antarus, are you happy with this?
I'll just tweak it to add kuzetsa to authors and ajak to thanks list.
Another small point: Whitespace in the new section doesn't follow theFixed - the blank lines were inconsistent in multiple places, but the
style in the rest of the GLEP, which uses two blank lines before and one blank line after section headings, as well as two spaces at the end of
every sentence. (This is also what GLEP 2 says.)
On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 19:50 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:I'll be clear, I hope to set precedent for the successor organization.
+For the purposes of this policy, the Gentoo Foundation will not request +any verification of the name until such time as required by government +action or legal proceedings.Given that we're talking about disbanding the Foundation, I'm not sure
if it's a good idea to reference it specifically in new GLEPs.
Especially that to the best of my knowledge, Foundation doesn't really
get involved in gating new contributors.
+For the purposes of this policy, the Gentoo Foundation will not request
+any verification of the name until such time as required by government +action or legal proceedings.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 06:56:06AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 19:50 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:I'll be clear, I hope to set precedent for the successor organization.
+For the purposes of this policy, the Gentoo Foundation will not request +any verification of the name until such time as required by government +action or legal proceedings.Given that we're talking about disbanding the Foundation, I'm not sure
if it's a good idea to reference it specifically in new GLEPs.
Especially that to the best of my knowledge, Foundation doesn't really
get involved in gating new contributors.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
I'm sorry to be late to the party but...
On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 19:50 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
+For the purposes of this policy, the Gentoo Foundation will not request
+any verification of the name until such time as required by government
+action or legal proceedings.
Given that we're talking about disbanding the Foundation, I'm not sure
if it's a good idea to reference it specifically in new GLEPs.
Especially that to the best of my knowledge, Foundation doesn't really
get involved in gating new contributors.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Robin H Johnson wrote:
So far we had followed the principle not to list authors in the
acknowledgements (which is worded "the authors would like to thank").
If we start adding them for revision 1.2, then we'd have to add more
names to the existing list.
How's the clarification now, making it clear those are the authors for version 1.2?
Another small point: Whitespace in the new section doesn't follow the
style in the rest of the GLEP, which uses two blank lines before and one
blank line after section headings, as well as two spaces at the end of
every sentence. (This is also what GLEP 2 says.)
Fixed - the blank lines were inconsistent in multiple places, but the
two spaces were correct.
Paragraph kept.How's the clarification now, making it clear those are the authors for version 1.2?I'd still prefer a single list of acknowledgements in alphabetical
order, without any of the authors included. (But I don't have a strong opinion, so if you absolutely want to have a separate paragraph for 1.2,
then go ahead.)
However, can we please keep the authors list (in the header) as-is?Done.
If we're now going to include people for adding a single sentence or suggestion, then we'd also have to list several (all?) of the persons
who are listed in the original acknowledgements.
Fixed.Another small point: Whitespace in the new section doesn't follow the
style in the rest of the GLEP, which uses two blank lines before and one >> blank line after section headings, as well as two spaces at the end of
every sentence. (This is also what GLEP 2 says.)
Fixed - the blank lines were inconsistent in multiple places, but theThere shouldn't be double blank lines _after_ section headings (i.e.
two spaces were correct.
only a single blank line after "Specification" and "Rationale") [1].
On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Robin H Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 08:55:09AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I'd still prefer a single list of acknowledgements in alphabeticalParagraph kept.
order, without any of the authors included. (But I don't have a strong
opinion, so if you absolutely want to have a separate paragraph for 1.2,
then go ahead.)
However, can we please keep the authors list (in the header) as-is?Done.
If we're now going to include people for adding a single sentence or
suggestion, then we'd also have to list several (all?) of the persons
who are listed in the original acknowledgements.
There shouldn't be double blank lines _after_ section headings (i.e.Fixed.
only a single blank line after "Specification" and "Rationale") [1].
Also reworded to not say "Gentoo Foundation"; but still document the
intent about when verification could take place.
hi, this is just a quick check to see if the updated wording stillPlease see the other branch of this email thread: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/3fa6adb018736835f3b0406d7377148e
covers the discussion I had in -council on liberachat earlier this year.
last version I had in git repo or patch format was from july:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/kuzetsa/f9ff15998c2ae75fcb777c5a4f56dde4/raw/4c3314045de4437a277a738b96ef302fcc07a27c/0001-glep-0076-clarify-name-policy.patch
just wanting to sign off on the finalized version, and confirm the contributions I made weren't subjected to a regression during various
edits and bikeshed-adjacent tweaks, etc.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:34:54 |
| Calls: | 6,697 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,348,230 |