List of community members (and corporations) who have signed CLAs....

[Mark W.]

I was looking on the various web sites for the definitive list of
members and corporations that have executed the CLAs. I was hoping
that it would be just another link off of the Official Foundation page
here:
http://www.opensocial.org/page/opensocial-foundation

I'm asking for a few reasons, but primarily because as we approach
getting everything in ready for 1.0, this will be one of the things
we'll need to have in place. The other reason I'm asking is because I
think there's probably a bit of confusion going around. For example,
regarding the CLAs, I was pointed to this doc (http://
spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rZ1BvOOVE0r2fFHrn29ghOg) by a
colleague in IBM. Their question was simply... Is Atlassian the only
company to sign the CLA? Hence my search and questions. It's probably
already there and the mystical Google search engine has not found it
(maybe Dan or Chris can help with that).

The other point is confusion about membership in the OpenSocial
Foundation and being a member of the OpenSocial website. From an
outward appearance, it can be misconstrued that because you become a
member of the web site, you are a member of the OpenSocial
Foundation.

Somewhere we should make clear this is not the case. It would be great
if there was also a way to have "OpenSocial Foundation Member" appear
on the profile.

Thanks,

-Mark W.

[Tim Moore]

There's a list of links at http://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=Specification_Process
one of which is the one you found. A number of people have signed the
individual CLA but, yeah, it does look like Atlassian is the only one
that has done the CCLA, for whatever reason. It says the list is
sanitized, so maybe the canonical list isn't public?

-- Tim

[Mark W.]

Given the fact that we are an open community it seems like everyone
should be able to know who's and member and who's signed the CLAs?
This is probably just an oversight and is part of the growing pains
that we are going through in getting quality specs out the door. I
would be very surprised, for example, if at a minimum, Google, Yahoo,
and MySpace didn't sign the CLAs, not to mention all the very active
folks on this list that work for those companies.

That said, this is an important detail for the community to know,
especially since it's a required part of the development process. How
can we make this information available? Is this something that the
OpenSocial Foundation's board should take up? Should we also put a
column in the proposals section of the spec change page indicating if
the person on point has executed the CLA?
http://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=Spec_Changes

-Mark W.


On Oct 24, 4:07 am, Tim Moore <tmo...@atlassian.com> wrote:
> There's a list of links athttp://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=Specification_Process

[Dan Peterson]

Hi folks,

I'm in 100% agreement with Mark. The good news is that all of the forms (CLA, CCLA, Non-Assert) referenced in the OpenSocial spec process are transparent in exactly that way. You can see an entry for everyone (or every entity) that has submitted the form. Absolutely no entries are redacted; the sanitization mentioned in the spec process is done automatically so that all contributors to the OpenSocial specification don't have to have their phone numbers & mailing addresses published for the world to see (which seems desirable, but if others disagree, please speak up).

Additionally, as for the lack of an abundance of CCLA signatures, that is likely a result of our ever evolving process: the OpenSocial v1.0 revision is the first time that the CLAs will be officially required before specification contributions can be reviewed for inclusion. For prior iterations, these forms were not actually complete, so they couldn't have been executed. Congratulations to Atlassian for being ahead of the curve.

Since we're just now at the point of OpenSocial v1.0 where the lack of CLAs becomes a blocker, I suspect that we'll see a lot more of people officially executing their own CLAs quite soon. 

Form links: http://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=Specification_Process#Contributions_.26_Intellectual_Property

The bottom-line is that if you're going to contribute to specification proposals, you need to have a CLA (and/or CCLA) on file with the OpenSocial Foundation, and, if you contribute to the next iteration, when the iteration is ready for publication, you'll be expected to sign the non-assert for that particular version as well.[1]

Mark, I like your suggestion to modify the spec changes status page to incorporate CLA status (for at least the owner of the proposal). Seems like it would make shepherding a bit easier.

Hope this helps clarify where things are at,

-Dan

[1] - More background and details in the original thread -- http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/msg/f748e51ad1a1df5d

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.

[goosemanjack]

I'm on the list, but I see somewhere along the line MySpace dropped
the ball for signing as an entity. I'll follow up internally to
rectify this issue and get us signed off.
--
clc

On Oct 28, 11:20 pm, Dan Peterson <dpeter...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm in 100% agreement with Mark. The good news is that all of the forms
> (CLA, CCLA, Non-Assert) referenced in the OpenSocial spec process are
> transparent in exactly that way. You can see an entry for everyone (or every
> entity) that has submitted the form. Absolutely no entries are redacted; the
> sanitization mentioned in the spec process is done automatically so that all
> contributors to the OpenSocial specification don't have to have their phone
> numbers & mailing addresses published for the world to see (which seems
> desirable, but if others disagree, please speak up).
>
> Additionally, as for the lack of an abundance of CCLA signatures, that is
> likely a result of our ever evolving process: the OpenSocial v1.0 revision
> is the first time that the CLAs will be officially required before
> specification contributions can be reviewed for inclusion. For prior
> iterations, these forms were not actually complete, so they couldn't have
> been executed. Congratulations to Atlassian for being ahead of the curve.
>
> Since we're just now at the point of OpenSocial v1.0 where the lack of CLAs
> becomes a blocker, I suspect that we'll see a lot more of people officially
> executing their own CLAs quite soon.
>

> Form links:http://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=Specification_Process#Cont...

>
> The bottom-line is that if you're going to contribute to specification
> proposals, you need to have a CLA (and/or CCLA) on file with the OpenSocial
> Foundation, and, if you contribute to the next iteration, when the iteration
> is ready for publication, you'll be expected to sign the non-assert for that
> particular version as well.[1]
>
> Mark, I like your suggestion to modify the spec changes status page to
> incorporate CLA status (for at least the owner of the proposal). Seems like
> it would make shepherding a bit easier.
>
> Hope this helps clarify where things are at,
> -Dan
>

> [1] - More background and details in the original thread --http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/msg/f748e5...

> > opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com<opensocial-and-gadgets-spec%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Dan Peterson]

Thanks Chris.

By the way, Google has submitted the Corporate CLA and executed the additional non-assert for 0.9.

Cheers,

-Dan

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.

[goosemanjack]

We should have a valid signature on the CLA submitted for processing.
LMK if this doesn't come thru.
--
clc

> > <opensocial-and-gadgets-spec%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<opensocial-and-gadgets-spec%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>