@dataflake Yes, the Plone foundation is the successor to the Zope foundation. If it hadn't been we would have had to shut down contributions on the day of the meeting that did the transfer until we got new agreements sorted out. If that had been the case then the ZF would have started accruing copyright again.
In my mind, the reasons to get everyone to re-sign goes back to enforcability, it's easier to enforce an open-source licence if documentation on ownership is thorough. It'll be much harder to enforce the licence with respect to contributions only covered by the Zope Foundation contributor agreement as the Plone Foundation would not only have to prove infringement but also prove the assignment of rights is legally valid and that the legal successor status is legally valid. We all believe it is, but if we ever have to go to court we'd have to prove it and that takes time, money and effort. That also adds in additional relevant legal jurisdictions, as the court has to consider the laws of the place the infringement happened, the laws of the places the code authors live and Delaware corporate law.
Again, as I say above, if people are enthusiastic about working on better legal agreements that are binding and enforcable in all the many countries we have contributors from, I'm sure that the Plone Foundation will absolutely be up for working on this more. Right now that is a long and involved project that currently has no volunteers. It doesn't make sense to me that we hold up incremental improvement that we can do immediately waiting for a better incremental improvement that has no ETA.
As to the second point, I apologise. I re-read my original message and it's unclear. I think @mgedmin read it the way I intended, but that's not sufficient. The intention of this thread was to communicate the suggestion that we do this. I think I must have assumed that re-doing the existing agreements was clear from context, but obviously it wasn't.
I don't speak for the Plone Foundation, I'm a volunteer trying to fix problems and seeking feedback from the community. The whole point of posting this was to make the suggestion public and hear reactions from people. There's a lot of flexibility in this, but it's all trade-offs. If you feel strongly that it's a bad idea to redo the agreements then it would be great if you could explain the specific reasoning.
Regarding communicating the deadline, remember that you're looking at an unpublished bit of guidance. There isn't a deadline, there's a placeholder for one. Do you think that 6 weeks or so is too short a period? I'm not sure about the third page, I'd forgotten it was there. I'll have to get advice on that.
The use of "Zope" as the name of the program is based on what we do for Plone, which again is the product of advice over the years. If there are any things in the Zope Foundation github that could not be considered to be Zope then that's an important thing for us to consider, but AIUI a lot of this is based on showing clear intention.
By the way, I also pinged everyone who has access to the git organisation over on Github pointing to this thread. I would have sent an email to the dev mailing list but it appears I stopped receiving the emails back in 2013 and although I've re-subscribed I've not been approved yet.
Anyway, as of yesterday we've formed a new team to handle the Zope transition in a more orderly way, as I mentioned above was my desire. Next week we're going to be trying to convince people they want to help with that and your name is literally at the top of the list of people to speak to. I'm travelling at the moment and in a non-European timezone, which makes it hard to have discussions about planning out work.