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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Ihor Radchenko  writes:

>> FWIW, I'd be inclined to leave the task for future action, perhaps 
>> changing it to a WAITING keyword with a state-change note explaining the 
>> status (that's what I use in my system, anyway).  But if you disagree, I 
>> won't argue.
>
> I do not mind. I can also add a link to my email there.

Done.
See the updated https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html#org2ba9ee1

> I just looked into changing this TODO into inlinetask and that would
> require adding a style for inlinetasks.

Now done. And I converted the maintenance "FIXME" notes to inlinetasks.

> ... While looking, I noticed a
> commented section in worg-editing.org:
>...
> In particular, BeginWarningBox (see
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/images-and-xhtml-export.html)
> might be a basis of inlinetask css.

Exactly what I used.
I also changed these macros to use CSS styles, which automatically
allows properly named special blocks.
See https://orgmode.org/worg/worg-editing.html#org366cb9a
and https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/images-and-xhtml-export.html
for examples of the new info/warning box styles.

> Also, the above macros may be one existing way to provide highlighting
> we discussed earlier.

See how I implemented highlighting in
https://orgmode.org/worg/topics/how-many-files.html

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Samuel Wales  writes:

> not following this.
>
> but it amused me:
> ...

This is not the final version we settled upon.
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html now has

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 within a month[2], the maintainers can ask
the contributor to follow up with the FSF, CCing the Org
maintainers.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  writes:

> 1.  Having to use separate BEGIN and END macros is less convenient than 
> more Lispy constructs, like a macro call with a string argument.  But I 
> guess, to wrap Org elements, like a TODO heading or inline task, it 
> would be necessary.  A macro call with the text as an argument wouldn't 
> be a task in Org syntax, which would make it less useful outside of 
> rendered HTML.

Not for inlinetasks. For everything but heading, we can actually use
special blocks.

For headings, there is also :HTML_HEADLINE_CLASS property.

> 2.  Those macros, or one much like them, could be useful for the use 
> case of centering text to stand out, as discussed in the other thread.

Yes, but they are currently rather plain (other than having an image):

.org-info-box {
clear:both;
margin-left:auto;
margin-right:auto;
padding:0.7em;
}
.org-info-box img {
float:left;
margin:0em 0.5em 0em 0em;
}
.org-info-box p {
margin:0em;
padding:0em;
}

Wondering if we should add some background.

> 3.  For cases that don't potentially involve wrapping Org elements, 
> having a simple macro with the text as its argument might be preferable 
> to having separate BEGIN and END macros.  I wonder if we could have 
> non-begin-end equivalents of the begin-and-end macros listed there.

.org-info-box is certainly not suitable for inline highlights.
Do we need such highlights though? Isn't the classic
italic/bold/underline enough?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Samuel Wales]

not following this.

but it amused me:

>>   In rare cases, an inquiry from an
>> +Org maintainer gets the process moving again.
>
> may be missing something, but the last sentence now reads like our
>(Org maintainer's) inquiry rarely works.

while it can definitely read that way, to me as a native speaker at least,
it is reasonably ok, although ambiguous.  it is saying, somewhat casually,
that in rare cases it is /needed/ for the org maintainer to intervene and
he or she does so successfully or so.  removing ambiguity would  help, but
nto a huge deal.

apropos of nothing, ambiguity should be eliminated from medical textbooks
and papers.  "rarely, " can be interpreted like, it's rare so look for
horses not zebras [neglecting that zebras exist], or it's rare but consider
it and find out more about it, or various other things.



-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

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

[Adam Porter]

On 4/2/24 06:20, Ihor Radchenko wrote:

I just looked into changing this TODO into inlinetask and that would 
require adding a style for inlinetasks. While looking, I noticed a 
commented section in worg-editing.org:


...

Also, the above macros may we one existing way to provide
highlighting we discussed earlier.

WDYT?


A few thoughts:

1.  Having to use separate BEGIN and END macros is less convenient than 
more Lispy constructs, like a macro call with a string argument.  But I 
guess, to wrap Org elements, like a TODO heading or inline task, it 
would be necessary.  A macro call with the text as an argument wouldn't 
be a task in Org syntax, which would make it less useful outside of 
rendered HTML.


2.  Those macros, or one much like them, could be useful for the use 
case of centering text to stand out, as discussed in the other thread.


3.  For cases that don't potentially involve wrapping Org elements, 
having a simple macro with the text as its argument might be preferable 
to having separate BEGIN and END macros.  I wonder if we could have 
non-begin-end equivalents of the begin-and-end macros listed there.


--Adam

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  writes:

>> I am inclined to remove this todo - I already asked gnulib guys and they
>> contacted FSF about the latest version of the form. Until we get a
>> reply, there is nothing we can act upon. See
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00060.html
>
> FWIW, I'd be inclined to leave the task for future action, perhaps 
> changing it to a WAITING keyword with a state-change note explaining the 
> status (that's what I use in my system, anyway).  But if you disagree, I 
> won't argue.

I do not mind. I can also add a link to my email there.

I just looked into changing this TODO into inlinetask and that would
require adding a style for inlinetasks. While looking, I noticed a
commented section in worg-editing.org:

- BeginMiniPage ... EndMiniPage :: creates a mini page with a border. Used 
to
 demonstrate layouts (see: 
[[file:./org-tutorials/images-and-xhtml-export.org]] for
 an example).

- BeginInfoBox ... EndInfoBox :: inserts a box with a little info icon on 
the
 left. The text inside flows around the icon. Both, info and warning 
boxes,
 use the styles for =.org-info-box= in 
[[file:style/worg.css][worg.css]].

- BeginWarningBox ... EndWarningBox :: Like =BeginInfoBox= and 
=EndInfoBox=. The
 icon used is different.

- BeginBlindText ... EndBlindText :: creates a == element, that
 greys out the text. Used for text that is there just to fill paragraphs
 to demonstrate text flow (see:
 [[file:./org-tutorials/images-and-xhtml-export.org]] for an example).

In particular, BeginWarningBox (see
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/images-and-xhtml-export.html)
might be a basis of inlinetask css.

Or we may be copy the style from ox-html.

Also, the above macros may we one existing way to provide highlighting
we discussed earlier.

WDYT?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Adam Porter]

On 3/30/24 06:08, Ihor Radchenko wrote:


This is actually not true that Emacs repository has a separate copyright
assignment form.

CONTRIBUTE file says

 In most cases, to start the assignment process you should download
 
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
 and return the completed information to the address at the top.

This is linking to one of the forms at gnulib, the same with what
gnu.org suggests.

In contrast, we, in WORG, link to a _copy_ of the form rather than to
the original form.

I've just pushed some clarifications to org-maintenance page, adding the
correct link, but still leaving our current form - our form has one
answer pre-filled.
https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg/commit/e5deaca5


Thanks.


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).


I am inclined to remove this todo - I already asked gnulib guys and they
contacted FSF about the latest version of the form. Until we get a
reply, there is nothing we can act upon. See
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00060.html


FWIW, I'd be inclined to leave the task for future action, perhaps 
changing it to a WAITING keyword with a state-change note explaining the 
status (that's what I use in my system, anyway).  But if you disagree, I 
won't argue.


Thanks,
Adam

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  writes:

>> 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.)

This is actually not true that Emacs repository has a separate copyright
assignment form.

CONTRIBUTE file says

In most cases, to start the assignment process you should download

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
and return the completed information to the address at the top.

This is linking to one of the forms at gnulib, the same with what
gnu.org suggests.

In contrast, we, in WORG, link to a _copy_ of the form rather than to
the original form.

I've just pushed some clarifications to org-maintenance page, adding the
correct link, but still leaving our current form - our form has one
answer pre-filled.
https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg/commit/e5deaca5

> 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).

I am inclined to remove this todo - I already asked gnulib guys and they
contacted FSF about the latest version of the form. Until we get a
reply, there is nothing we can act upon. See
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00060.html

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Bastien Guerry]

Adam Porter  writes:

> Sure.  I've pushed that, adding a "co-authored-by" line for Bastien.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien Guerry

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  writes:

>> Actually, what Bastien suggested is slightly different.
>> See the attached tentative patch.
>
> Sure.  I've pushed that, adding a "co-authored-by" line for Bastien.

Thanks!

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

[Adam Porter]

On 3/28/24 07:01, Ihor Radchenko wrote:

Adam Porter  writes:


On 3/26/24 09:59, Ihor Radchenko wrote:


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.

 ^^^

Other than changing "request" to, e.g. "arrive," no objection from me.


Actually, what Bastien suggested is slightly different.
See the attached tentative patch.


Sure.  I've pushed that, adding a "co-authored-by" line for Bastien.

Thanks,
Adam

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  writes:

> On 3/26/24 09:59, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>
>> 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.
> ^^^
>
> Other than changing "request" to, e.g. "arrive," no objection from me.

Actually, what Bastien suggested is slightly different.
See the attached tentative patch.

>From eff683e8a936edb0e84516daee8d4b8972e3ab8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-ID: 
From: Ihor Radchenko 
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:59:40 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] org-maintenance.org: Clarify how to followup when no reply
 from FSF

* org-maintenance.org (Assignment and verification): Explain that we
allow one month for FSF to reply for the copyright request and then
follow up.

Link: https://orgmode.org/list/87o7b3bye3.fsf@localhost
---
 org-maintenance.org | 9 ++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/org-maintenance.org b/org-maintenance.org
index cfbb55b4..a0393e20 100644
--- a/org-maintenance.org
+++ b/org-maintenance.org
@@ -467,9 +467,12 @@ *** Assignment and verification
 #+end_center
 
 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.
+get stuck or overlooked at the FSF.  If there is no response to the
+contributor from FSF within a month[fn:: The official response time is
+5 business days, according
+https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html.  We allow a bit
+more.], the maintainers can ask the contributor to follow up with the
+FSF, CCing the Org maintainers.
 
 *** Authorship information
 
-- 
2.44.0


-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Adam Porter]

On 3/26/24 09:59, Ihor Radchenko wrote:


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.

   ^^^

Other than changing "request" to, e.g. "arrive," no objection from me.

Thanks,
Adam

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Adam Porter  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-advis...@gnu.org?

>> Also, about the changes to the FSF form that Stefan mentioned in
>> https://yhetil.org/emacs-devel/jwvh6hne6nv.fsf-monnier+em...@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 .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Adam Porter]

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+em...@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.

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

[Bastien Guerry]

Ihor Radchenko  writes:

> Sounds reasonable.

OKay -- feel free to go ahead with whatever version you find best.

> It is a longer period compared to 5 business days mentioned in
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html, but the copyright clerk
> is just a single guy taking care about all the requests...

Hence my proposal to wait at least for one month. 

IMO it is not a problem if Org and other GNU packages propose distinct
ping'ing policies as long as the shorter period (one month for Org) is
not shorter than the one proposed for GNU in general (one week, IIUC.)

-- 
 Bastien Guerry

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien Guerry  writes:

> Until Org maintainers get an email confirmation for when a copyright
> assignment process is done, we can simply suggest contributors to wait
> a month before pinging the copyright clerk and to CC Org maintainers
> when doing so.  WDYT?

Sounds reasonable.
It is a longer period compared to 5 business days mentioned in
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html, but the copyright clerk
is just a single guy taking care about all the requests...

When the contributor emails the form to the FSF, the FSF sends per an
electronic (usually PDF) copy of the assignment. This, or whatever
response is required, should happen within five business days of the
initial request. If no reply from the FSF comes after that time, please
send a reminder. If there is still no response after an additional week,
please write to maintain...@gnu.org about it.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

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

[Bastien Guerry]

Until Org maintainers get an email confirmation for when a copyright
assignment process is done, we can simply suggest contributors to wait
a month before pinging the copyright clerk and to CC Org maintainers
when doing so.  WDYT?

-- 
 Bastien Guerry

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Dear Adam, Bastien,

> +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.

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

> +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.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at