3 ms·

> most have not complained the OSS releasing process is heavyweight Citation needed. I have been at Google for 6 years and I have seen many people either 1. qu

> most have not complained the OSS releasing process is heavyweight Citation needed. I have been at Google for 6 years and I have seen many people either 1. quit in frustration at our OSS policy; 2. stop contributing to OSS projects on their free time because of frustration with our policy; 3. just ignore the OSS policy at the risk of getting fired because the precedent is that most people ignore the policy. Most people I talk with do (3), nobody will admit to it publicly though. I'm right now waiting for an IARC approval for a small HTML+Typescript that took me 6h to build on a weekend and that I want to MIT-license. This has now been pending for 2 weeks. This is completely ridiculous and it means there is just no reasonable way for someone to follow the policy while doing small side projects on the weekend. Going through the releasing process would have taken roughly the same time, except that Google would also probably not be interested in owning that code for multiple reasons.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> I'm right now waiting for an IARC approval for a small HTML+Typescript that took me 6h Why do you want IARC and not patching approval for that? Unless your intent is to make money from it in the future, there's really no need to engage in the IARC process. Patching approval is painless, and the easiest process for something that you want to be considered to exist outside of Google (its owned by you in your personal capacity, but google maintains copyright to your while-employed-by-google contributions), and doesn't require IARC or any approval other than a quick self-approval process for the first few commits. Then it requires nothing.
- delroth 7y ago
  For example, because I don't want people to have to sign a CLA to contribute patches to my weekend side projects? That's incredibly dev hostile.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Unless it's changed recently, projects released under patching (again, not releasing) don't require a signed cla (edit: just checked and they don't). They're not Google owned, Google just maintains ownership of your contributions. And if you look at the releasing guidelines, they only make sense for code developed in google3 and later released. You can't actually follow the releasing process for code developed on non-google hardware, your only option is to follow the patching or iarc methods, and patching is trivially easy and doesn't require anyone to sign a cla.

joshuamorton 7y ago

> I'm right now waiting for an IARC approval for a small HTML+Typescript that took me 6h Why do you want IARC and not patching approval for that? Unless your intent is to make money from it in the future, there's really no need to engage in the IARC process. Patching approval is painless, and the easiest process for something that you want to be considered to exist outside of Google (its owned by you in your personal capacity, but google maintains copyright to your while-employed-by-google contributions), and doesn't require IARC or any approval other than a quick self-approval process for the first few commits. Then it requires nothing.

delroth 7y ago
For example, because I don't want people to have to sign a CLA to contribute patches to my weekend side projects? That's incredibly dev hostile.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Unless it's changed recently, projects released under patching (again, not releasing) don't require a signed cla (edit: just checked and they don't). They're not Google owned, Google just maintains ownership of your contributions. And if you look at the releasing guidelines, they only make sense for code developed in google3 and later released. You can't actually follow the releasing process for code developed on non-google hardware, your only option is to follow the patching or iarc methods, and patching is trivially easy and doesn't require anyone to sign a cla.