oh, that makes sense. technically, but still have a problem legally. I mean, I could create a false account - after all, no one is asking any legally binding ID over the internet.
The only place I know personally is the registration with our fiscal authority where to get an account you have to go and register in person in a financial police office.
Unless DCO is meant to be used with PEC/ De-Mail etc, but I guess that very very few geeks would comply
I will stop accepting pull requests from Ghengis Khan and Julius Caesar from now on!
OK, I Agree
Sincerely, Groucho
Maybe i fired up a missunderstanding above: the second part off my post is more or less addressed to Jerome. And it should read kind of funny with all the short forms of ā¦
Sorry about that.
And for ācertificateā: maybe this should read āminimal proof of reliabilityā. But noone dared to write DMPORC at the end. 
no itās me that I probably have to apologize - probably I misused English here. as for being aggressive I meant I did not want to dig into a real example, thatās it 
Iām totally relaxed. Peace!
Hi
Tried to submit this https://github.com/openhab/openhab-docs/pull/1640
And got the error. Tried to follow the instructions above using Web, but no luckā¦ Deleted and recreated and same issue? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks
Mark
EDIT: So I have tried this again with every combination I can see but my request still fails?
EDIT: So After a final flyer - you have to expose your email address in GitHub. Doe snot work if you want to keep your email address private.
Why make it so complicated/hard to contribute to openHAB documentation?
Can you perhaps make signing DCO into a GitHub Action?
Not seem the requirement of manually signed each commit for docs in any other open source project.
Home Assistantās CLA is signed online in a web browser with some button clicks if got GitHub Account.
https://www.home-assistant.io/developers/cla/
" Signing - If you have not signed the CLA and you submit a pull request to a repository under the Home Assistant organization, a link will be automatically generated. Just follow the link and the instructions in the link."
Believe they may be using CLA assistant or similar as a GitHub Action to make it more user-firendly:
https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant
https://github.com/cla-assistant/github-action
That is, not just a check wheather or not its signed but help users sign PRs using just a web browser.
Sorry but the current method is simply not worth it for causal users wanting to help update docs a little.
Hey @Hedda,
Thanks for your valuable input.
The DCO was a hurdle for a long time and i brought up this topic in the past.
Generally we came to the conclusion that DCO isnāt necessary at all for our docs.
We just had no valuable solution yet because the current one (DCO Bot) is configured for the whole openHAB organization and it is a huge effort to just exclude one repository.
But after another talk we have no reconfigured DCO Bot and for now we removed it complete for the openhab docs.
I am also in contact with the creators of dco bot and we filed a support request to github to get a more flexible configuration within organizations as a long term solution.
Long story short:
DCO is no longer needed for providing docs contributions.
Long story short 2:
Thanks for the cla assistand links. I am looking into this.
Maybe a valuable alternative for more than our docs repository.
FYI, DCO Bot still failing if edit documentation and make PR submitted in GitHub web interface. See ex:
https://github.com/openhab/org.openhab.binding.zigbee/pull/735
Again, this is more than a little inconvenient if want non-developers to help contribute to documentation.
What @Confectrician describes is valid only for the documentation repositorys, but not for binding repos.
As you are contributing to the Zigbee binding repo, DCO ist still needed. We cannot differ in the bot config if you are contributing code or just updating a README.
Would it then not be a good idea to split binding documentation from binding code so not same repo?
I know that is what Home Assistant does where docs for all bindings/integrations share one repo, see:
https://github.com/home-assistant/home-assistant.io/
https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/
Not having that DCO does make it a much more streamlined process for contributing integrations docs.
100% No.
It is already pretty rough to get active contributors for the docs.
For the bindings we can make sure that the docs are in sync with the latest code changes through the review process of code contributions.
But then you still have the problem of getting non-developer to contribute to binding usage documentation for end-users if the have to jump through hops just to help out with improving their usage documentation.
I really donāt understand this discussion.
Even if a DCO check fails, maintainers can still merge documentation changes and will do so.
So what is the problem ?
I have to admit this too.
There is still one hurdle left, that everyone has to take to contribute.
=> You need to contribute via github.
This is the case for every repository we use in openHAB independent from the DCO Bot usage over there.
Our addon repo maintainers are able to differentiate between code contributions where a DCO is mandatory and small doc contributions where an exception can be made.
(An exception is possible and stated explicitly in our contribution guidelines.)
So you have to find the corret file to edit (possible with the edit link on the bottom of every doc page) and propose the edit in any case.
On the other hand we would have to take care of a correct sync between codebase and corresponding doc article by hand and we would not be able to compare code changes and doc changes in one review process and the same view on github.
So we would need active doings from multiple binding contributors over several repositories.
Summarized we would force many (really many) people, to change a good working behavior/workflow for possibly āa fewā additional contributions. We wouls solve one culprit and add different other problems.
I respect the thoughts you are making about this and i really appreaciate everyone who tries to improve the documentation and how it is generated. Especially because i know how hard it is to find active and reccuring contributors over there.
But for this change i am really sure that we would make the situation for addon docs worse on mid and long term.
