On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:59:12PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Simon, what if we don't need resources other than to declare it as OSI
> sane or something? Perhaps we could just start off with the existing
> standalone DCO text that W. King wrote, see if Fontana can help review
> when the stars align and later see if the board can bless and publish
> it? If we need an FAQ I can likely hack that up together based on the
> slides. If this path is desirable I guess I need to join OSI ?
Hadn't considered it before, but I see some great pragmatic value to
getting OSI endorsement of the DCO, or something DCO-like -- if it's
*just* the DCO.
But if the price to pay for that is OSI getting in the business of
endorsing all sorts of contributor agreements (it's hard to see why
any of the common ones would be rejected flat out unless very strict
criteria were adopted by the OSI), then I don't think it is
worthwhile. That just re-legitimizes the kinds of asymmetrical
contributor agreements the DCO has come to have the effect of
displacing.
Also OSI approval of the existing DCO probably would have the effect
of freezing (or at least slowing down) its further evolution. Granted,
so far there hasn't been much effort to further evolve the DCO (and
there may be some who believe it is perfect) so perhaps that doesn't
matter. But that was something I was thinking of getting involved in
when I accepted Luis's volunteering of me to maintain the DCO (though
I have not acted on this yet, I have been thinking about it as
recently as yesterday :).