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

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>]

Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net> writes:

> ...
>> According to
>> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers:
>> ...
>> 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.)

AFAIU, gnu.org is the source of truth for us, as a GNU project.
Bastien, any comments? Maybe we should ask gnu-advisory@gnu.org?

>> 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.

Yes, it has to be, if we stick to what gnu.org says:

   ... Please don’t use any of
   the templates except for those listed here, and please don’t change the
   wording.

(I personally also do prefer the changed wording, but we are not
discussing personal preferences here; it is a legal dimension)

>>> +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.

I agree. My concern was not about dropping the previous wording.

What about

The assignment process does not always go quickly; occasionally it may
get stuck or overlooked at the FSF.  If there is no response to the
contributor from FSF, Org mode maintainers can contact the FSF at
 =copyright-clerk AT fsf DOT org=.  Historically, FSF replies to the
 maintainer request within a few days.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>