04:45 | <bakkot> | littledan: another occasion to note that the current "register as a contributor" process is absurd and I think ought to be revised https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3192#issuecomment-1758898371 |
04:45 | <bakkot> | ecma262 editors should have discretion to mark a contribution as not substantial and merge without getting the CLA signed |
13:47 | <Michael Ficarra> | Please remember to review and fix up your notes from the last meeting: https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/506. Publish date is tomorrow. |
14:00 | <littledan> | littledan: another occasion to note that the current "register as a contributor" process is absurd and I think ought to be revised https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3192#issuecomment-1758898371 |
14:00 | <littledan> | ecma262 editors should have discretion to mark a contribution as not substantial and merge without getting the CLA signed |
19:03 | <Michael Ficarra> | non-technical contributions seem like a very conservative place to start drawing that line |
19:21 | <littledan> | yeah, so if you write some policy down, I'll go talk to Bloomberg's lawyers about it. I think "nontechnical" isn't really concrete enough, though (clearly there are nontechnical things in the world which copyright applies to). |
19:36 | <Andreu Botella> | I wonder if "non-technical and not subject to copyright" (because the contribution is small/trivial enough) might be an acceptable policy as far as lawyers are concerned |
19:37 | <Andreu Botella> | though the lawyers won't be the ones judging whether the contribution is subject to copyrihgt |
20:16 | <bakkot> | ljharb: can you put a conclusion for the "export default from" item in the notes? |
20:16 | <ljharb> | yes, i'll do that when i review them later today |
20:16 | <bakkot> | great |
20:17 | <ljharb> | yeah, so if you write some policy down, I'll go talk to Bloomberg's lawyers about it. I think "nontechnical" isn't really concrete enough, though (clearly there are nontechnical things in the world which copyright applies to). |