I've been developing an API internally with a few friends, and hope to expand it and make it open to the broader public. I've highlighted a lot of background in this question, but to recap, it's a smaller project that has mostly been intended for educational use.
We're going fairly well, found a name for it (Spoiler! It's called Snowdrop!) and are quite impressed with the way we're going. In preparation for going public, we've been looking around, wondering if we should get a license. To give us more control on the project, we've thought about doing contributor agreements.
Naturally, we came here. Found Harmony Agreements, but found one thing in common with many agreements: that they all need to be physically signed. Of course, this becomes a hassle: we scare off people who may want to contribute, and for those who inexperienced with open source, it becomes a hassle for them as well.
Our combined ignorance in both knowledge and experience makes us reluctant to go out and explore (even just a little bit). To stop anything from happening to us, and to not have to go through any attribution issue or random stuff with contributors, we just figured that we would just making any contributions our own - assigning any copyright to ourselves, which is basically the equivalent of a Copyright Assignment Agreement.
contributing file, or a section in the Wiki or Website as a part of the organization or the repository)?
Now of course, the most important question here is, should we even bother in this? Are there even contributor agreements that "follow" the analogy that I noted above?