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
I don't really see how that thread is evidence of anything being absurd; the contributor registered immediately without complaint.
14:00
<littledan>
ecma262 editors should have discretion to mark a contribution as not substantial and merge without getting the CLA signed
This could be OK; could you propose concrete guidelines for which things are trivial, so I can ask lawyers to review it?
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).
wouldn't ecma's lawyers be the ones that need to approve it?