Entry three of #46 is answered, and this issue writes the answer down where a
decision lives. The answer, decided 2026-08-24: a result may be promoted into a
board under different terms only with the contributor's explicit consent, given
at promotion time.
No contributor agreement in advance, and no restriction to work somebody
authored themselves. The reasons run against both of the options that were not
taken. A contributor agreement puts a legal document in front of somebody who
wanted to try an idea, which is a real deterrent on a board whose whole purpose
is lowering the cost of trying. Taking only self-authored work limits what the
board can hand over, which is the thing the hand-over path exists for.
The known cost of the answer is that a step at promotion time is a step that
will sometimes be skipped under time pressure. That is why the consent is a line
in the promotion record rather than a conversation somebody remembers: a check
requires the line, so the skipped case is caught rather than trusted. The record
has to carry both halves - the cost and what holds it - because a residual
stated with its control is honest and a residual stated alone reads as an
excuse.
The sign-off gate already asks contributors to certify their right to contribute
under this project's licence, and that certification says nothing about a
different licence elsewhere. The record has to say that plainly, so nobody reads
the existing gate as covering this.
docs/decisions/0005-how-a-result-leaves.md is where the hand-over path is
fixed. Whether this record supersedes it or sits beside it is a question for
whoever writes it, and record 0000 fixes what superseding costs and how it is
written.
What section three has to list: a contributor agreement covering it in advance,
and taking only work the promoter authored themselves. Section four says what
each would have cost, and entry three of #46 sets both out.
Done when docs/decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md exists on
the default branch, carries the four sections record 0000 fixes, names explicit
consent at promotion time, says the consent is a line in the promotion record and
what reads it, states that the sign-off gate does not cover it, states the
skipped-step cost, and lists in sections three and four both rejected options
with what each would have cost.
Entry three of #46 is answered, and this issue writes the answer down where a
decision lives. The answer, decided 2026-08-24: a result may be promoted into a
board under different terms only with the contributor's explicit consent, given
at promotion time.
No contributor agreement in advance, and no restriction to work somebody
authored themselves. The reasons run against both of the options that were not
taken. A contributor agreement puts a legal document in front of somebody who
wanted to try an idea, which is a real deterrent on a board whose whole purpose
is lowering the cost of trying. Taking only self-authored work limits what the
board can hand over, which is the thing the hand-over path exists for.
The known cost of the answer is that a step at promotion time is a step that
will sometimes be skipped under time pressure. That is why the consent is a line
in the promotion record rather than a conversation somebody remembers: a check
requires the line, so the skipped case is caught rather than trusted. The record
has to carry both halves - the cost and what holds it - because a residual
stated with its control is honest and a residual stated alone reads as an
excuse.
The sign-off gate already asks contributors to certify their right to contribute
under this project's licence, and that certification says nothing about a
different licence elsewhere. The record has to say that plainly, so nobody reads
the existing gate as covering this.
docs/decisions/0005-how-a-result-leaves.mdis where the hand-over path isfixed. Whether this record supersedes it or sits beside it is a question for
whoever writes it, and record
0000fixes what superseding costs and how it iswritten.
What section three has to list: a contributor agreement covering it in advance,
and taking only work the promoter authored themselves. Section four says what
each would have cost, and entry three of #46 sets both out.
Done when
docs/decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.mdexists onthe default branch, carries the four sections record
0000fixes, names explicitconsent at promotion time, says the consent is a line in the promotion record and
what reads it, states that the sign-off gate does not cover it, states the
skipped-step cost, and lists in sections three and four both rejected options
with what each would have cost.