incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Umbrella projects
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:20 GMT
Well binaries do not require votes, they
are considered a "courtesy service" of the
project.  In any case there is sufficient
precedent which disagrees with Ross's opinion
that all PPMC votes must take place here that
his position could be reasonably contested
should a valid need arise.




>________________________________
>From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:31 AM
>Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
>
>[Recombining the thread]
>
>On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:43, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 12 September 2011 12:34, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 12 Sep 2011, at 10:55, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> 
>>>> We need to manage this carefully. A Japanes language list to ensure
>>>> non-English speaking people are able to participate in the project is
>>>> fine. A Japanese language list for creating a different version of OOo
>>>> for the Japanese market is not fine.
>>> 
>>> The reality is likely to be somewhere in-between. For example, the PT-BR localisation
of OOo was the subject of extensive discussion in Portuguese about exactly how to translate
various aspects of the UI, none of which would be of great relevance to English-speakers but
which was still development discussion. The same would be likely to apply to every locale.
>>> 
>> 
>> Let me clarify "different version" I meant significantly different,
>> not just a translation.
>
>You say "just a translation" but the debate on the PT-BR version led to two competing
releases for a time, with an impact on the community there which lingers to this day. Localisation
of a consumer application is never "just a translation" as might happen to the strings in
a server project; substantial end-user decisions are debated, negotiated and agreed by thoughtful
developers.
>
>/The/ key reason for the success of OpenOffice.org is that there exists a large, global
community of groups of localisers who each act in autonomy or semi-autonomy to create the
release for each locale. Your message is a wake-up call that we need to put a lot more thought
into how the project will approach them, especially if they will need to be separate projects
in order to retain their locale-specific autonomy.
>
>On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:44, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 12 September 2011 11:50, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If there is to be a NL build of the AOO product to be
>>> released, presumably that build will take place at Apache? Or could it take
>>> place elsewhere but only be formally released by Apache?
>> 
>> It depends on what you mean by "takes place". Anyone can build
>> anything they want, wherever they want. However a formal release of an
>> Apache project must receive 3 binding +1's. The vote to get those
>> votes *must* be carried out here on the official dev list (this one).
>
>So the release of (for example:) a new PT-BR binary needs three binding +1s on this (English-speaking)
list?
>
>S.
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message