2026-01-14 12:25:05

Mandatory contributor agreements like CLA and DCO sound good in theory, but honestly? They're doing the opposite of what projects need. When devs face unnecessary bureaucratic hoops just to submit code, they don't stick around—they move on to projects that respect their time. If you're serious about building an open community, those compliance bots aren't the move.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PumpBeforeRug

· 11h ago

ngl, what you said is so true. CLA really discourages people, and developers are not contract-bound animals.

View OriginalReply0

pumpamentalist

· 11h ago

Really, CLA's approach is just the art of pushing people away; developers have nowhere else to go.

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_therapist

· 11h ago

Hey, no, CLA really is quite annoying, the developers already left.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityNinja

· 11h ago

ngl Those mandatory protocols are just pushing people away; there's really no need for them.

View OriginalReply0

GhostChainLoyalist

· 11h ago

Haha, that CLA stuff really is a deterrent. I've seen too many developers just run away directly.

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 11h ago

You're absolutely right. The CLA approach is really an effective way to push people away. I've seen many open-source projects lose a bunch of contributors because of this, and as a result, they become even more closed off.

View OriginalReply0

DustCollector