Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Konstantin Kharlamov
I was wondering about that off-list, and I was asked to create a new
topic about that.

I recently went through the signing procedure, and one thing I didn't
like which can be improved: the specific steps up to sending a mail to
[hidden email] are not documented. In my case I had to send a private
mail to Eli asking for the assignment form, he sent it back to me along
with further instructions; then I filled the form and sent it to
[hidden email].

This is a roundtrip that takes time for both maintainer and a user.
Additionally, users are not even sure if what they're doing is correct,
e.g. look at the last "assignment"-titled mail on this list, it starts
with "I'm not sure if it's the right place to ask this". Yes, neither
was I! That only adds  up confusion and frustration (which is likely
already there because you can't "just contribute" like with other FOSS
projects). Even more so when one has social communication problems,
which I think is not that rare among scientists/developers.

It would really help if the emacs documentation about assignment¹ has
either α) a paragraph with the form to be sent to [hidden email] and
according instructions, or β) if it has to be documented on another
site, e.g. FSF's, it would help to put a link to emacs documentation¹
after the words "Copyright assignment is a simple process." (and I hope
that this would-be referred documentation includes α; preferrably with
any legal notes — if there will be any — moved somewhere at the
bottom).

1:
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Copyright-Assignment.html#Copyright-Assignment



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OFFTOPIC] Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Stefan Monnier
> I recently went through the signing procedure, and one thing I didn't like
> which can be improved: the specific steps up to sending a mail to
> [hidden email] are not documented.

This is actually not really Emacs-specific so it should be discussed
elsewhere, but indeed, it would help if the FSF replaced the "form" with
a web-page.


        Stefan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Konstantin Kharlamov
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:33:21 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Richard Stallman <[hidden email]>
>
> I recently went through the signing procedure, and one thing I didn't
> like which can be improved: the specific steps up to sending a mail to
> [hidden email] are not documented. In my case I had to send a private
> mail to Eli asking for the assignment form, he sent it back to me along
> with further instructions; then I filled the form and sent it to
> [hidden email].
>
> This is a roundtrip that takes time for both maintainer and a user.

Don't worry about the maintainer's time.  It took me all of 10 sec to
respond with the form and the instructions for filling it.

> Additionally, users are not even sure if what they're doing is correct,
> e.g. look at the last "assignment"-titled mail on this list, it starts
> with "I'm not sure if it's the right place to ask this". Yes, neither
> was I!

The only way I can understand this particular aspect of the issue is
by assuming that people don't read the section in the Emacs manual
where this is described, the one you quoted in your email, because
that section explicitly tells to ask on emacs-devel.

I can understand why this could happen: our user manual, being such a
large document, it is not the best place to include this information
and hope that it will be easily discoverable there.  So I've included
that information near the beginning of CONTRIBUTE, which is about the
first document potential contributors should read before sending
patches.

> It would really help if the emacs documentation about assignment¹ has
> either α) a paragraph with the form to be sent to [hidden email] and
> according instructions, or β) if it has to be documented on another
> site, e.g. FSF's, it would help to put a link to emacs documentation¹
> after the words "Copyright assignment is a simple process." (and I hope
> that this would-be referred documentation includes α; preferrably with
> any legal notes — if there will be any — moved somewhere at the
> bottom).

If the FSF places the forms on some official site, and accompany them
with the necessary instructions about how to choose the correct one
(yes, there's more than one form), then I agree that we should
reference that place in our docs.  But I don't think it's right for us
to include the assignment form(s) in our docs, because we are not the
source of the document, and don't really have to understand all the
intricacies of the process, starting with how to choose the correct
form for each case.  (Gnulib does include the forms in its repository,
but I don't think this is TRT for any GNU project to do that.)

I think having the information in CONTRIBUTE will make it much more
discoverable.  As for the time it takes to ask for the form and send
it in response, I don't see that as a significant issue.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Clément Pit-Claudel
On 2019-04-11 09:51, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> So I've included
> that information near the beginning of CONTRIBUTE, which is about the
> first document potential contributors should read before sending
> patches.

Great idea. Thanks Eli.

I wonder if https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ could grow a 'Contribute' page.  We have a link to https://www.gnu.org/help/help.html under 'Help GNU', but maybe we also want to repeat the Emacs-relevant part of that page on Emacs' website?  We could include a link to the repo, a brief description of the assignment process, and a pointer to the CONTRIBUTE file.

Clément.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Paul Eggert
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii
On 4/11/19 6:51 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I've included
> that information near the beginning of CONTRIBUTE, which is about the
> first document potential contributors should read before sending
> patches.

This sounds like a good approach. Although contributing to Emacs is not
that simple, we should strive to ease people into it rather than give
them all the rules in one big (and forbidding) gulp.

As for the request to put the forms online: I think the idea is that we
want human interaction there, so that we can help the contributor by
selecting the form appropriate for their contribution. It's not like
we're so swamped by potential contributors that we can't handle the load
of giving them this little help. That being said, if you want an online
copy of the forms you can get it here:

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
> From: Paul Eggert <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:03:55 -0700
>
> As for the request to put the forms online: I think the idea is that we
> want human interaction there, so that we can help the contributor by
> selecting the form appropriate for their contribution. It's not like
> we're so swamped by potential contributors that we can't handle the load
> of giving them this little help.

I agree.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Konstantin Kharlamov
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii


В Чт, апр 11, 2019 at 16:51, Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]>
написал:

>>  Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:33:21 +0300
>>  From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
>>  Cc: Richard Stallman <[hidden email]>
>>
>>  I recently went through the signing procedure, and one thing I
>> didn't
>>  like which can be improved: the specific steps up to sending a mail
>> to
>>  [hidden email] are not documented. In my case I had to send a
>> private
>>  mail to Eli asking for the assignment form, he sent it back to me
>> along
>>  with further instructions; then I filled the form and sent it to
>>  [hidden email].
>>
>>  This is a roundtrip that takes time for both maintainer and a user.
>
> Don't worry about the maintainer's time.  It took me all of 10 sec to
> respond with the form and the instructions for filling it.
>
>>  Additionally, users are not even sure if what they're doing is
>> correct,
>>  e.g. look at the last "assignment"-titled mail on this list, it
>> starts
>>  with "I'm not sure if it's the right place to ask this". Yes,
>> neither
>>  was I!
>
> The only way I can understand this particular aspect of the issue is
> by assuming that people don't read the section in the Emacs manual
> where this is described, the one you quoted in your email, because
> that section explicitly tells to ask on emacs-devel.

Not really. The section I quoted tells to ask any questions on
emacs-devel, but not to ask for the form/instructions in there. When I
read that section I'm getting stuck "What do I do now? Yeah, I can ask
a question on emacs-devel, but that sounds silly, because sure
somewhere here should be the steps for what to do now". So I'm reading
the section over and over, then I start googling, reading through a
bunch of irrelevant stuff on the internet… And only then, as I give
up, I, depending on the level of frustration, do either of α) lay that
aside to some distant future, or β) ask a non-confident question here
about assignment.

> I can understand why this could happen: our user manual, being such a
> large document, it is not the best place to include this information
> and hope that it will be easily discoverable there.  So I've included
> that information near the beginning of CONTRIBUTE, which is about the
> first document potential contributors should read before sending
> patches.
>
>>  It would really help if the emacs documentation about assignment¹
>> has
>>  either α) a paragraph with the form to be sent to [hidden email]
>> and
>>  according instructions, or β) if it has to be documented on another
>>  site, e.g. FSF's, it would help to put a link to emacs
>> documentation¹
>>  after the words "Copyright assignment is a simple process." (and I
>> hope
>>  that this would-be referred documentation includes α; preferrably
>> with
>>  any legal notes — if there will be any — moved somewhere at the
>>  bottom).
>
> If the FSF places the forms on some official site, and accompany them
> with the necessary instructions about how to choose the correct one
> (yes, there's more than one form), then I agree that we should
> reference that place in our docs.  But I don't think it's right for us
> to include the assignment form(s) in our docs, because we are not the
> source of the document, and don't really have to understand all the
> intricacies of the process, starting with how to choose the correct
> form for each case.  (Gnulib does include the forms in its repository,
> but I don't think this is TRT for any GNU project to do that.)

Although GNU Emacs indeed are not the source for form, however it is
Emacs that has the mandatory requirement for the assignment. This means
it is correct for Emacs to have it documented — one way or another.

> I think having the information in CONTRIBUTE will make it much more
> discoverable.  As for the time it takes to ask for the form and send
> it in response, I don't see that as a significant issue.

Okay, maybe it's not an issue for you, because you're used to the
mailing list, as well as to replies to assignment form inqueries.

But it is an issue for an arbitrary user who wants the form.

First of: there's no requirement for a contributor to be subscribed
here, since patches go to debbugs site anyway. And a user may not know
how to use a mailing list: does one have to subscribe? How to
subscribe? What to do with dozens of mails from the list every day?
Nowadays you can't reasonably expect arbitrary peoples to know how MLs
work.

Second: a user may not be a native speaker, so composing a mail may
take time for that alone reason. You can't expect a contributor to be a
good speaker either, because they could be e.g. just a student who
wants to improve the app they're using as part of their paper.

Third: sending to a -devel ML means asking real developers. This may be
an overwhelming thought, making one to try to avoid that as much as
possible. I'm telling that from my own past experience: though right
now I'm comfortable (I work as a developer, I contributed to many
projects, I just got used to being around developers), but it wasn't
always true. Just 3-4 years ago I'd be really afraid, thinking "But
assignment form doesn't sound like a development question, am I sure
this is correct? Won't they make laugh of me?".

Fourth: sending to an ML means there's a bunch of people, and everyone
gonna see your mail. If you have social communication problems, for
example sociophobia, this is a demotivational factor.

Fifth: asking specifically for copyright assignment on ML feels like
yelling "look everyone, I'm gonna contribute to Emacs!", whereas one
may not even be sure about usefulness of planned contributions. One may
just have some thoughts for improvements, but they may not pan out for
one reason or another. I think this may demotivate anyone, doubly so if
one has social communication problems.

And don't forget that the factors can be combined! Whereas the fix is
dead easy: just make it clear how to get the form and instructions
without any interaction.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Stefan Monnier
In reply to this post by Paul Eggert
> As for the request to put the forms online: I think the idea is that we
> want human interaction there, so that we can help the contributor by
> selecting the form appropriate for their contribution.

I think for many people it would be nicer if we can point them to
a web-page than sending them a text form to email.

As for the choice, I think it's best to only present them with the
"assign.future" form first, and leave discussion of alternatives if/when
they find it problematic.

But there is the risk that they end up signing something for "ELPA"
or for their one current project instead of signing for "Emacs" and then
later come to regret it because it forces them to go through the whole
process again.

> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/

That's not a web form.


        Stefan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Konstantin Kharlamov
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 02:49:09 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> > The only way I can understand this particular aspect of the issue is
> > by assuming that people don't read the section in the Emacs manual
> > where this is described, the one you quoted in your email, because
> > that section explicitly tells to ask on emacs-devel.
>
> Not really. The section I quoted tells to ask any questions on
> emacs-devel, but not to ask for the form/instructions in there.

I admit I don't understand this logic.  You are told to ask _anything_
about the assignment process on this list, including for how to start
the process:

     Copyright assignment is a simple process.  Residents of some
  countries can do it entirely electronically.  We can help you get
  started, and answer any questions you may have (or point you to the
  people with the answers), at the <[hidden email]> mailing list.

So why would someone think that asking about the form is
inappropriate?

> Although GNU Emacs indeed are not the source for form, however it is
> Emacs that has the mandatory requirement for the assignment.

No, every GNU project has this requirement, not just Emacs.  GCC, GDB,
Binutils, Coreutils, Bash, Diffutils, Grep, Texinfo, Gnulib, Guile,
Wget -- you name it.  They all require an assignment.  Even submitting
translations for messages of some program requires an assignment.

> Okay, maybe it's not an issue for you, because you're used to the
> mailing list, as well as to replies to assignment form inqueries.
>
> But it is an issue for an arbitrary user who wants the form.
>
> First of: there's no requirement for a contributor to be subscribed
> here, since patches go to debbugs site anyway. And a user may not know
> how to use a mailing list: does one have to subscribe? How to
> subscribe? What to do with dozens of mails from the list every day?
> Nowadays you can't reasonably expect arbitrary peoples to know how MLs
> work.
>
> Second: a user may not be a native speaker, so composing a mail may
> take time for that alone reason. You can't expect a contributor to be a
> good speaker either, because they could be e.g. just a student who
> wants to improve the app they're using as part of their paper.
>
> Third: sending to a -devel ML means asking real developers. This may be
> an overwhelming thought, making one to try to avoid that as much as
> possible. I'm telling that from my own past experience: though right
> now I'm comfortable (I work as a developer, I contributed to many
> projects, I just got used to being around developers), but it wasn't
> always true. Just 3-4 years ago I'd be really afraid, thinking "But
> assignment form doesn't sound like a development question, am I sure
> this is correct? Won't they make laugh of me?".
>
> Fourth: sending to an ML means there's a bunch of people, and everyone
> gonna see your mail. If you have social communication problems, for
> example sociophobia, this is a demotivational factor.
>
> Fifth: asking specifically for copyright assignment on ML feels like
> yelling "look everyone, I'm gonna contribute to Emacs!", whereas one
> may not even be sure about usefulness of planned contributions. One may
> just have some thoughts for improvements, but they may not pan out for
> one reason or another. I think this may demotivate anyone, doubly so if
> one has social communication problems.
>
> And don't forget that the factors can be combined! Whereas the fix is
> dead easy: just make it clear how to get the form and instructions
> without any interaction.

With the relevant information now explicitly spelled in CONTRIBUTE, I
think these issues are more-or-less solved now.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Konstantin Kharlamov


On Пт, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:00, Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>  Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 02:49:09 +0300
>>  From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
>>  Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>>
>>  > The only way I can understand this particular aspect of the issue
>> is
>>  > by assuming that people don't read the section in the Emacs manual
>>  > where this is described, the one you quoted in your email, because
>>  > that section explicitly tells to ask on emacs-devel.
>>
>>  Not really. The section I quoted tells to ask any questions on
>>  emacs-devel, but not to ask for the form/instructions in there.
>
> I admit I don't understand this logic.  You are told to ask _anything_
> about the assignment process on this list, including for how to start
> the process:
>
>      Copyright assignment is a simple process.  Residents of some
>   countries can do it entirely electronically.  We can help you get
>   started, and answer any questions you may have (or point you to the
>   people with the answers), at the <[hidden email]> mailing list.
>
> So why would someone think that asking about the form is
> inappropriate?

The logic is: this whole page is a documentation about the assignment,
it's even titled accordingly. So somewhere it should have all the gory
details. But there's none.

And then there's a suggestion to ask any question on emacs-devel. Sure,
absence of steps for getting assignment implies you have one; but at
the same time the fact that you're reading the Emacs documentation on
getting assignment implies that you shouldn't have *this specific*
question, because sure it's documented here. So you reading it over and
over, you look at other places, you query the internet… This makes
one feel silly, and asking on emacs-devel becomes sort of last resort.

>>  Although GNU Emacs indeed are not the source for form, however it is
>>  Emacs that has the mandatory requirement for the assignment.
>
> No, every GNU project has this requirement, not just Emacs.  GCC, GDB,
> Binutils, Coreutils, Bash, Diffutils, Grep, Texinfo, Gnulib, Guile,
> Wget -- you name it.  They all require an assignment.  Even submitting
> translations for messages of some program requires an assignment.
>
>>  Okay, maybe it's not an issue for you, because you're used to the
>>  mailing list, as well as to replies to assignment form inqueries.
>>
>>  But it is an issue for an arbitrary user who wants the form.
>>
>>  First of: there's no requirement for a contributor to be subscribed
>>  here, since patches go to debbugs site anyway. And a user may not
>> know
>>  how to use a mailing list: does one have to subscribe? How to
>>  subscribe? What to do with dozens of mails from the list every day?
>>  Nowadays you can't reasonably expect arbitrary peoples to know how
>> MLs
>>  work.
>>
>>  Second: a user may not be a native speaker, so composing a mail may
>>  take time for that alone reason. You can't expect a contributor to
>> be a
>>  good speaker either, because they could be e.g. just a student who
>>  wants to improve the app they're using as part of their paper.
>>
>>  Third: sending to a -devel ML means asking real developers. This
>> may be
>>  an overwhelming thought, making one to try to avoid that as much as
>>  possible. I'm telling that from my own past experience: though right
>>  now I'm comfortable (I work as a developer, I contributed to many
>>  projects, I just got used to being around developers), but it wasn't
>>  always true. Just 3-4 years ago I'd be really afraid, thinking "But
>>  assignment form doesn't sound like a development question, am I sure
>>  this is correct? Won't they make laugh of me?".
>>
>>  Fourth: sending to an ML means there's a bunch of people, and
>> everyone
>>  gonna see your mail. If you have social communication problems, for
>>  example sociophobia, this is a demotivational factor.
>>
>>  Fifth: asking specifically for copyright assignment on ML feels like
>>  yelling "look everyone, I'm gonna contribute to Emacs!", whereas one
>>  may not even be sure about usefulness of planned contributions. One
>> may
>>  just have some thoughts for improvements, but they may not pan out
>> for
>>  one reason or another. I think this may demotivate anyone, doubly
>> so if
>>  one has social communication problems.
>>
>>  And don't forget that the factors can be combined! Whereas the fix
>> is
>>  dead easy: just make it clear how to get the form and instructions
>>  without any interaction.
>
> With the relevant information now explicitly spelled in CONTRIBUTE, I
> think these issues are more-or-less solved now.

Thank you! Btw, I just looked at log for CONTRIBUTE
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/CONTRIBUTE I don't seem
to see anything new. Are they perhaps on review?



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:57:24 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> > With the relevant information now explicitly spelled in CONTRIBUTE, I
> > think these issues are more-or-less solved now.
>
> Thank you! Btw, I just looked at log for CONTRIBUTE
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/CONTRIBUTE I don't seem
> to see anything new. Are they perhaps on review?

Crystal ball says you looked at the wrong branch.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Konstantin Kharlamov


On Пт, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:33, Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>  Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:57:24 +0300
>>  From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
>>  Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>>
>>  > With the relevant information now explicitly spelled in
>> CONTRIBUTE, I
>>  > think these issues are more-or-less solved now.
>>
>>  Thank you! Btw, I just looked at log for CONTRIBUTE
>>  http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/CONTRIBUTE I don't
>> seem
>>  to see anything new. Are they perhaps on review?
>
> Crystal ball says you looked at the wrong branch.

Hmm, I assume webinteraface shows master by default, so you didn't
commit there. Why?



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:42:41 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> > Crystal ball says you looked at the wrong branch.
>
> Hmm, I assume webinteraface shows master by default, so you didn't
> commit there. Why?

Because this change needs to be in Emacs 26.2 as well.  It's in
CONTRIBUTE: changes that are relevant to the release branch should be
pushed there, and they will get merged to master soon after.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Amin Bandali-4
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii
Minor nit:

On 2019-04-12 10:00 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
[...]
> No, every GNU project has this requirement, not just Emacs.

As far as I can tell this is false; see [1].

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html

> GCC, GDB, Binutils, Coreutils, Bash, Diffutils, Grep, Texinfo, Gnulib,
> Guile, Wget -- you name it.  They all require an assignment.  Even
> submitting translations for messages of some program requires an
> assignment.

Indeed, these are examples of projects requiring an assignment—and
that’s generally the norm—but not all GNU projects do, and it’s
ultimately up to the author(s) of the package to decide.  For instance,
GNU Guix doesn’t require contributors to assign copyright to the FSF.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Phillip Lord-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Monnier
Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]> writes:

>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/
>
> That's not a web form.


Indeed not. I would ask for slightly more than a webform
though. Something which shows the current status of the copyright
assignment and which allows the maintainers to see clearly who has done
which steps. Having a list of aliases that people use would also be
nice, since you often only have git IDs or email addressed to work out
who has contributed to a particular project. I realise that this needs
to be balanced against the right to privacy for developers, of course.

It would also be nice to have something that showed the current status
of peoples copyright assignment -- currently, it is very hard to know if
a assignment has run out, or if the person has moved employer.

I think this is a significant problem as it stands; I managed to get the
copyright assignment done for the 40 developers on dash.el using email
threads and a local org file. But I have failed to update it because of
new developers coming on stream. I wouldn't even begin to think about
starting the process for a project like magit (250 developers).

There are around 1.2k developers who have contributed to MELPA (which is
a good lower bound for the number of somewhat current Emacs-lisp
developers), or 1.8k developers in AUTHORS (which is a good lower bound
for the number of Emacs-lisp developers in all history), or 1.8k who
have contributed to an MELPA package at all (which is another good lower
bound for emacs-lisp developers).

It's a big number. A better system would be worthwhile.

Phil







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Stefan Monnier
> Indeed not. I would ask for slightly more than a webform
> though. Something which shows the current status of the copyright
> assignment and which allows the maintainers to see clearly who has done
> which steps.

I'd love to have that as well, but I'd rather first ask for the minimum
first step and later ask for the rest, otherwise I'm afraid we'll never
get past the first step.


        Stefan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Phillip Lord-3
> From: Phillip Lord <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:13:08 +0100
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]>
>
> There are around 1.2k developers who have contributed to MELPA (which is
> a good lower bound for the number of somewhat current Emacs-lisp
> developers), or 1.8k developers in AUTHORS (which is a good lower bound
> for the number of Emacs-lisp developers in all history), or 1.8k who
> have contributed to an MELPA package at all (which is another good lower
> bound for emacs-lisp developers).
>
> It's a big number. A better system would be worthwhile.

If it's possible, I certainly would welcome a more versatile and
dynamic system for that.  But this is something the FSF should do, not
the Emacs project.  We are just one customer of that system.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Phillip Lord-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Monnier
Stefan Monnier <[hidden email]> writes:

>> Indeed not. I would ask for slightly more than a webform
>> though. Something which shows the current status of the copyright
>> assignment and which allows the maintainers to see clearly who has done
>> which steps.
>
> I'd love to have that as well, but I'd rather first ask for the minimum
> first step and later ask for the rest, otherwise I'm afraid we'll never
> get past the first step.


Yes, I understand that. But having a final vision in mind would be not
bad thing. It's even possible it could come off the shelf; a ticket
system, or something build over the top of git, for instance.

Phil

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Konstantin Kharlamov
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii


В Пт, апр 12, 2019 at 15:33, Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]>
написал:

>>  Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:42:41 +0300
>>  From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
>>  Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>>
>>  > Crystal ball says you looked at the wrong branch.
>>
>>  Hmm, I assume webinteraface shows master by default, so you didn't
>>  commit there. Why?
>
> Because this change needs to be in Emacs 26.2 as well.  It's in
> CONTRIBUTE: changes that are relevant to the release branch should be
> pushed there, and they will get merged to master soon after.

I took a look, thank you.

I wonder, per discussion above, can a similar update be applied here
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Copyright-Assignment.html#Copyright-Assignment 
?

For example, sentence

        We can help you get started, and answer any questions you may have (or
point you to the people with the answers), at the [hidden email]
mailing list.

May be changed to

        For the necessary form together with the instructions to fill and
email it ask at the [hidden email] mailing list. We can help you
get started, and answer any questions you may have (or point you to the
people with the answers).



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting FSF copyright assignment process

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:04:58 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
> I wonder, per discussion above, can a similar update be applied here
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Copyright-Assignment.html#Copyright-Assignment 
> ?

OK, I added a reference to the form there, thanks.

12