Reviewing our use DCO for usability, personal safety, validity about community HOT 5 CLOSED

Great arguments.

The DCO requirement comes from the Linux Foundation. If we want to change it, we need to involve the Linux Foundation.

from community.

I have to agree as the DCO does make things additionally burdensome and does remove anonymity. I can chat with folks at the LF if we really do have to have this if you'd like.

from community.

I would +1 removing this requirement, especially in light of @Nebrethar's comments above. If removing the requirement isn't something we can implement, maybe there can be a provision for those who would like to opt-out.

from community.

I'm supportive of streamlining the DCO process. Perhaps our language can be modified so that an explicit sign-off on the DCO isn't required. Here are examples from a couple of communities that I have been involved with that say "by making a contribution, you agree to the DCO terms"

• Cube Dev: https://github.com/cube-js/cube.js/blob/master/DCO.md#developers-certificate-of-origin
• GitLab: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/dco/-/blob/master/README.md

from community.

HI all.

After talking with folks at the LF, I really think this is something we need to keep. The primary reasons around around ensuring that contributions are

The DCO indicates that contributors are responsible for the code that they contribute and that they understand that the contribution is under the terms of the [..] project licenses."

Not having the DCO also contributes to pattern that may result in malicious code being contributed because of anonymity. I think our only other option is a CLA which is much more involved and even higher overhead.

from community.