> Over time, the community started pushing back [against CLAs] due to the bureaucracy of it all
yet, I remember contributing to some apache projects where the bureaucracy amounted to ticking a "I give $project ownership of this patch" box in the issue tracker, which seems as little bureaucracy as possible.
I suppose I am missing something, can anyone explain?
The level of bureaucracy depends on the project of course, but any type of CLA will cause problems for many corporate contributors.
Where I am, policy allows us to contribute small patches to open source projects without legal approval - but only if there's either no CLA, or an existing CLA for a major organisation like Apache that our legal team has already reviewed. Otherwise, mandatory legal review for any and all contributions.
A DCO-based system, on the other hand, is fine by us.
> Over time, the community started pushing back [against CLAs] due to the bureaucracy of it all
yet, I remember contributing to some apache projects where the bureaucracy amounted to ticking a "I give $project ownership of this patch" box in the issue tracker, which seems as little bureaucracy as possible. I suppose I am missing something, can anyone explain?