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 13:11:05 GMT

>________________________________
>From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM
>Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
>
>On 12 September 2011 13:41, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well binaries do not require votes, they
>> are considered a "courtesy service" of the
>> project.
>
>For clarity:
>
>An *official* release requires a vote. A binary snapshot release (for
>example) does not.
>
>Usually an official release (which is a source release) is accompanied
>by a binary release that is a courtesy as Joe says.
>
>I think what Joe means here (apologies if I am misrepresenting you
>Joe) is that if, for example, Apache OO.o 3.4 were released today then
>a native language *binary* release based on that code could be made
>tomorrow without a vote.


Correct, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.htmll#what-must-every-release-contain

All "released" binaries must be buildable from voted-upon source packages.



>
>The question then is how much control over native language versions
>does the PPMC want and at what point is the native language version no
>longer considered to be a version of Apache OO.o but instead it is a
>downstream modification of Apache OO.o.
>
>It's for the PPMC to decide that.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think my position has been morphed by this thread. My comments are
>not *only* about native language sub-groups, I merely used a native
>language group as the example.
>
>I am *not* saying that native language releases are a problem.
>
>I am *not* saying that native language projects are *automatically*
>sub-projects that might lead to OO.o being an umbrella of the kind the
>ASF does not like.
>
>What I *am* saying is that we need to be aware of how much autonomy
>sub-lists have. Those sub-lists may, or may not be, about native
>language versions. My mail is, as Simon says an attempt to sound "a
>wake-up call that we need to put a lot more thought into how the
>project will approach [semi-auomonous groups]"
>
>[Finally, for the record, I disagree that project decisions (requiring
>a vote) can be taken anywhere but here.]


Traditionally it depends on the scope of the decision.  Subprojects at
the ASF are free to hold binding votes on their sublists, presuming
the decision only affects that subproject.



>
>Ross
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>Programme Leader (Open Development)
>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message