incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred A. Reiter" <ma.rei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Native Language vs l10n
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:28:16 GMT
Dear Rob,

Am 17.06.2011 21:49, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma.reiter@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Can you understand, that due to the nature of OOo it always
>> had very strong language specific communities, wich significantly
>> contributed to the huge success of OOo?
>>
>> Interfering with the habits and cultures established within these
>> communties will in fact not take you any further than somebody
>> can say "we obeyed the Apache standard rules".
>>
>> The power of local communites which can act independently,
>> has proven to be especially usefull in these areas were competing
>> products simply couldn't offer a "consumer focused" localised solution.
>>
>> I'm just worried that you will alienate some very active contributors
>> by enforcing PMC rules just ... "because ..."
>>
> For things that impact the product release, things like code contributions,
> documentation, translations, etc., things that actually could make the bits
> and bytes of the release different, I think it is very important that these
> pieces are done in Apache.  And by being in the Apache project, they are
> covered by the Apache 2.0 license and by our consensus decision making
> process.
never questioned that.

IF a spelling mistake and a correction of the same in <Klingon - or your 
favorite language> is actually core development, that needs to be 
covered by a full blown PMC
then you probably need a round of refactoring in the core ;-).

> For the activities that do not impact the actual contents of the release,
> things like user support, country- or language-specific marketing activities
> and so on, for these I could see other models working as well.

you got it!

> Remember,
> with any Apache project, anyone is free to take the project's source code,
> translate it, build it and market it or even sell it.  This could be done
> with modifications and enhancements.  This is all possible under the Apache
> 2.0 license, whether you participate in the project or not.
>
ack
> So if there are existing groups that do such activities under Sun/Oracle
> OpenOffice.org, then they can continue to do so, by using Apache OpenOffice.
> But when we start talking about the Apache project, then we are not talking
> about "groups" joining.  We're talking about individuals joining.
got that during last discussions ;-)

>   I don't
> think we want to have independent, autonomous groups within an Apache
> project.
>
neither do I

> But I wonder whether one solution is this:
>
> 1) Strong existing language projects continue to operate independently,
> according to their own rules.
exactly my point

> 2) They ensure that their work is all done under Apache 2.0 license so it is
> usable by Apache OpenOffice as well as by LibreOffice
>
> 3) Language projects each appoint at least one member to join the Apache
> OpenOffice project as a liaison.
that could do the trick ...

but I would avoid to force grown and working communities
under a gonvernance process they don't need.

I would also avoid to deny those language projects to be
seperated from Apache.org ... in other words /home should
be at lang-klingon.ooo.apache.org and not oooinklingon.org
that will cause confusion, and is not very smart marketingwise.


cheers

Manfred

Mime
View raw message