On Tue, 19 May 2009 10:23:20 -0400, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/19/2009 10:08 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: >> Sorry, but I disagree. Remember, we already had ambassadors leaving the >> project after the CLA changed. I don't share their concerns (otherwise I >> had to resign, too), but I do see there are people not willing to sign >> the current CLA which means they cannot get a FAS account. > > This is a separate issue, lets not dogpile everything together > unnecessarily. There are some legitimate issues with the current CLA > that I am constantly working on resolving, but this is perhaps the most > complicated legal matter currently on Fedora Legal's plate. Even with > that, your statement that a CLA signature is required to get a FAS > account is not accurate. It is necessary to sign the CLA to make a > contribution to Fedora, but not simply to get a FAS account. > Of which a very practical example is (public) mirror admins and mirror managers of private downstream mirrors, who need a FAS account to log in and administer their mirror in MirrorManager, but do not need to sign the CLA. --Jeroen _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
