Skip to content

fix: [META] - CLA Guidance improvement#5428

Open
SillyZir wants to merge 3 commits intognolang:masterfrom
SillyZir:auto-fix/5333
Open

fix: [META] - CLA Guidance improvement#5428
SillyZir wants to merge 3 commits intognolang:masterfrom
SillyZir:auto-fix/5333

Conversation

@SillyZir
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@SillyZir SillyZir commented Apr 3, 2026

Summary

Rewrote CLA.md to include clear explanations of what the CLA is, why contributors must sign it, and step-by-step instructions on how to sign it — addressing the lack of guidance reported in #5333.

Fixes #5333

Problem

Contributors interacting with gnokey encountered a "user did not sign CLA" error with no context — no explanation of what a CLA is, why it's required, or how to actually sign it. The existing CLA.md was a dense legal document with no onboarding guidance, and the gnoweb render offered no additional clarity or trust signals.

Solution

Restructured CLA.md by adding three new sections — "What is the CLA?", "Why must contributors sign it?", and "How to sign the CLA" — above the existing legal text. These sections provide a plain-language overview of the agreement, explain the legal rationale (licensing rights, IP confirmation), and walk contributors through the signing flow. The original legal terms were preserved and reformatted for readability.

Impact

New and existing contributors will no longer hit a dead-end error without recourse. The improved CLA.md reduces friction in the contribution onboarding process and builds trust by making the legal requirements transparent and actionable.

@Gno2D2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Gno2D2 commented Apr 3, 2026

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):
  • IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
  • The pull request description provides enough details
Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:
  1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
  2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
    • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
    • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
    • Update documentation, if required.
    • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
    • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.
☑️ Reviewer Actions:
  1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.
📚 Resources:
Debug
Automated Checks
Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: SillyZir/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least one of these user(s) reviewed the pull request: [davd-gzl jefft0 notJoon omarsy MikaelVallenet] (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

Manual Checks
**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

  • Any user with comment edit permission
The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

  • team core-contributors

@SillyZir SillyZir marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2026 01:06
@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 added the review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review label Apr 7, 2026
@alexiscolin alexiscolin added the a/ux User experience, product, marketing community, developer experience team label Apr 7, 2026
@davd-gzl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

davd-gzl commented Apr 7, 2026

Related: #5325, #5331

@moul moul requested a review from alexiscolin April 7, 2026 12:36
@moul
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

moul commented Apr 7, 2026

@alexiscolin can you check with legal?

@alexiscolin alexiscolin moved this from Triage to In Review in 🧙‍♂️Gno.land development Apr 7, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

a/ux User experience, product, marketing community, developer experience team review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review 📄 top-level-md

Projects

Status: No status
Status: In Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[META] - CLA Guidance improvement

5 participants