doc: add dco to github pr template

[MylesBorins]

Our project relies on the Developer Certificate of Origin as a passive
alternative to a Contributor License Agreement. The PR template seems
like a great place to surface the text to help new contributors be
aware of the DCO and it's implications.

[nodejs-github-bot]

@MylesBorins build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/1451/pipeline

[mcollina]

LGTM

[richardlau]

Maybe also add an item that can be checked under the checklist?

[Trott]

This nearly triples the length of our PR template, increasing the likelihood that people will not bother reading this or any of the other text already there. Not blocking, but options I would prefer instead of this:

• a checkbox in the template indicating that the user has read and understood the DCO text in CONTRIBUTING.md (so no need to put all the text here)
• replace the DCO text in CONTRIBUTING.md with a link or other reference to this newly-added text in the template (so that we don't have the text duplicated in two places)

Options I'd be OK with that are likely to be even less popular:

• no change; the DCO is already in CONTRIBUTING.md
• removal of the GitHub templates; they seem to get in the way more than they help

In general, I think we should have fewer templates and shorter templates. DCO text is like a click-through license. It's a necessary evil that gets in the way and no one can take it seriously as something people read and agree to. If we have to add it here, oh well, so be it. Although I wonder what a lawyer's take would be....

[MylesBorins]

@Trott we could definitely add it to the checklist instead with a link people could click through

Also FWIW I was thinking that a DCO bot is something we could look at using... a bot that posts in the thread anytime someone is a new collaborator (doesn't have a commit in the repo they are opening a PR to)

Would you be open to landing this or an iteration and then removing it when a bot like mentioned above is launched?

[refack]

Options I'd be OK with that are likely to be even less popular:

• no change; the DCO is already in CONTRIBUTING.md
• removal of the GitHub templates; they seem to get in the way more than they help

Option 3:
Since the template is an informal guide I'd suggest adding a single sentence at the header jest before:

By submitting you agree to this project's Developer's Certificate of Origin in the

node/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

Line 6 in 98819df

i.e.

<!--
Thank you for your pull request. Please provide a description above and review
the requirements below.

Bug fixes and new features should include tests and possibly benchmarks.

By submitting you agree to this project's Developer's Certificate of Origin in the
Contributors guide: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

[Trott]

Would you be open to landing this or an iteration and then removing it when a bot like mentioned above is launched?

@MylesBorins Yes. My comments are non-blocking, as this can always be iterated on.

[MylesBorins]

Gonna think about this some more and reopen later

[MylesBorins]

Hey All,

I'd like to revisit this. It had a bunch of sign off. Any objections to moving forward with this?

[Trott]

Have there been problems that this solves? It adds a lot of text to the (IMO) already-ineffective GitHub templates.... People often ignore the checkboxes. People often check the box saying they ran make test when they clearly did not. And so on....

I'm not blocking on this, but I do think it would be better to remove the templates or shorten the templates. If we're going to add a bunch of text, let's be very clear about the value this adds.

[Trott]

Have there been problems that this solves? It adds a lot of text to the (IMO) already-ineffective GitHub templates.... People often ignore the checkboxes. People often check the box saying they ran make test when they clearly did not. And so on....

I'm not blocking on this, but I do think it would be better to remove the templates or shorten the templates. If we're going to add a bunch of text, let's be very clear about the value this adds.

You don't need to respond to this comment before landing. My questions can be dealt with later or not at all.

[MylesBorins]

@Trott as per the original post

Our project relies on the Developer Certificate of Origin as a passive
alternative to a Contributor License Agreement. The PR template seems
like a great place to surface the text to help new contributors be
aware of the DCO and it's implications.

While this adds cruft I do think it is important to surface this text to folks as it is the terms of their contribution

[Trott]

While this adds cruft I do think it is important to surface this text to folks as it is the terms of their contribution

Works for me. It's not my preference, but I don't oppose it, and also I am not a lawyer and can't speak to DCO issues competently anyway. So I defer to the apparent overwhelming support this has!

[Trott]

Gratuitous lite CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/3854/

[Trott]

Hmmm... lite CI again but this time with explicit rebase-onto-master: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-linter/3788/

[Trott]

Landed in a9512bd