Thanks, @MatthewWilkes, for the clear explanations, and your active role in the process!
About that "program" field on the agreement: of course it would be better to change that to a more generic catch-all description along the lines of "all software owned by the Plone Foundation".
But all changes to the CLA take time, as they have to be checked with legal advice in various jurisdictions. And since we rely a lot on the goodwill of people in the FSF and FSFE (the European counterpart) who are very busy people, we will need an interim solution.
Re-signing is a hassle, we know, but it does reduce risk overall. The 50% clause simply is not valid in many jurisdictions, including some where the most active contributors are. And as Matthew explained earlier, it will make it easier for the PF to ensure that Zope remains open source and that we can stand our ground on that if needed.
There is also other work to be done: domains, servers, infrastructure. There will be a team formed to guide that, in which we hope active members of the Zope community will participate. And in future there should a team to steer the technical direction of Zope.
As Board of the PF we will do our best to make the transfer as easy as possible. Yet there will be some friction points, such as re-signing CLA's. Undoubtedly there will also be some disruption like DNS changes, and discussions on how to best integrate the Zope infrastructure so as to minimize the load on the volunteers that run the Plone infrastructure.
With a bit of patience and pragmatism from everybody, that should all be doable, though it may take some time.
Lastly, we do hope that active members of the Zope community will also become official Members of the Plone Foundation. We're still working out what would be the simplest and most expedited process to get that done for those who want to become members. It may take a little while, but be assured we're working on it - so we can also officially extend the welcome.
Paul Roeland