Should our project adopt a CLA, or risk limiting casual contributors?

[RichardVM]

I’m trying to decide if my project should adopt a CLA. I’ve seen big foundations use them, but I’m worried it might discourage casual contributors who are put off by the legal step. I’m not sure if the added protection is worth that potential friction.

[Logan.S]

I tried a CLA a couple of years back. It gave the legal folks a clear line on what we could do with contributions, which felt sane for a project tied to a specific license. But I also noticed casual contributors slow down—some folks asked more questions than they contributed and a few simple PRs never landed. The friction wasn’t huge, but it was real enough to change how freely people came and went.

[VioletIL]

On another project we kept it lightweight. The requirement only kicked in for changes that touched licenseable code, not for docs or tiny fixes. Most casual contributors didn’t notice, and our velocity stayed roughly the same. The risk felt manageable because we had clear guidance in the contributing file and a kind, responsive maintainers team.

[Layla.G]

As a contributor I remember signing something and it felt like extra hoops for a tiny change. I spent more time reading the form than reviewing the patch, and I ended up delaying my PR. After that I drifted away from that project for a while, even though the code was neat.

[Stephen.H]

Maybe the problem isn’t the legal step at all. We chased faster onboarding and better maintainer response times, and that helped more than tinkering with documents. Is the real blocker the friction of getting new contributors through the door, not the terms themselves?