Re: [WORG] 2680e65 * org-maintenance.org (Copyright assignments): Minor improvements

[Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>]

On 3/24/24 07:35, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> +New contributors need to submit the [[https://orgmode.org/request-assign-future.txt][form]] to the FSF.
>> +#+begin_center
>> ...
>> +TODO: Get updated version of form from Emacs maintainers that includes the line asking the secretary to send confirmation to interested parties (i.e. the Org maintainers).
>> +#+end_center
> 
> I think that we are not very accurate here.
> According to
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers:
> 
>     Once the conversation is under way and the contributor is ready for more
>     details, you should send one of the templates that are found in the
>     directory /gd/gnuorg/Copyright/; they are also available from the
>     doc/Copyright/ directory of the gnulib project at
>     https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnulib. This section explains which
>     templates you should use in which circumstances. Please don’t use any of
>     the templates except for those listed here, and please don’t change the
>     wording.
> 
> We must use a specific form from a specific URL.

That isn't how the Emacs maintainers handle it.  They send a form by 
email when asked, or direct users to use the one in the Emacs git repo. 
AFAICT, they are equivalent, if not identical.

Regardless, it would be nice to have a canonical answer to this.  The 
gnu.org site says one thing, the emacs.git repo says another, 
org-mode.git says another, the people on the mailing say another, and 
Worg says another--all slightly different for no apparent reason. 
(There's also the Emacs manual, which probably mentions it too.)

> Also, about the changes to the FSF form that Stefan mentioned in
> https://yhetil.org/emacs-devel/jwvh6hne6nv.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org/
> It does not look like they are official yet. See
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00060.html

AFAICT the only change is the line that asks the FSF to send additional 
confirmation to some other interested parties.  Does that need to be 
officially official in order to use it?  The alternative is having the 
contributor ask by writing in the email message, which seems equivalent. 
  IOW, it doesn't change the form, it just adds an extra request.

>> +The assignment process does not always go quickly; occasionally it may
>> +get stuck or overlooked at the FSF.  The contact at the FSF for this
>> +is: =copyright-clerk AT fsf DOT org=.  In rare cases, an inquiry from an
>> +Org maintainer gets the process moving again.
> 
> I may be missing something, but the last sentence now reads like our
> (Org maintainer's) inquiry rarely works.
> 
> The previous version is very different, IMHO:
> 
>> -Emails from the paper submitter have been ignored in the past, but an
>> -email from the maintainers of Org mode has usually fixed such cases
>> -within a few days.

I would have preferred to omit all the language about the process 
sometimes not going quickly or smoothly; it doesn't seem necessary or 
helpful to publish such words, because they seem accusatory toward the 
FSF volunteers.  But in the spirit of preserving earlier contributors' 
intent rather than erasing it and just putting my own words, I left it.