incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Umbrella projects
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:20:14 GMT
Can we please keep this thread focussed on the topic I intended it to be.

If we really must get specific about the details of a very specific
instance of decision making it needs its own thread.


On 12 September 2011 17:08, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Donald Whytock <>
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>>  Why not just send the ballot to
>>>>  ooo-commits in Sumerian?
>>> I should think that would have to at least start out on ooo-dev-sux.
>>> NL development outsider here, asking for clarification...Would changes
>>> to the ixn components be considered changes to the "source"?  Because
>>> if it doesn't involve actual code changes I could see such a thing
>>> justifying a vote on some ooo-dev-xx but then only needing lazy
>>> consensus on ooo-dev.
>> 90% of the organizational concern for releases regards their licensing,
>> which I don't believe gets translated into other languages (at least not
>> without legal-discuss@ approval of the actual text.)
>> I have no idea where ixn lives in the subversion tree, but mods that
>> are committed to the tree are still mods that need to be voted on
>> when it comes time to release something based on those files.
>> My suggestion is for per-lang committers to be placed on the PPMC,
>> and for those folks to conduct their votes on their per-lang list.
>> Once that's accomplished, lets leave the training wheels on at first
>> and ask ooo-dev@ to approve the release candidates via lazy consensus.
>> Then take the whole shebang to the general@incubator list for formal
>> approval by the IPMC (this step will go away when ooo graduates).
> Maybe someone can clear up exactly what we're talking about with a
> language release.
> My understanding was we have a core code base, that has all
> code-dependent i10n features in it.  We also have translations,
> dictionaries, etc., per language.  We can build a release in English
> and then require that the user download an additional "language pack"
> to enable an additional language.  Or we can spin off a build (more of
> a new install build) to include an additional language.
> You can see this here, with the existing releases:
> So the question comes down to:  what languages do we support via
> officially-released install images, versus which ones are supported
> via language packs?  For example, today, for Uzbek, it is only
> available via a language pack.
> This might vary based on the timing of the translation.  In other
> words, we might release a new version with core languages supported,
> and then enable additional languages over time as translations
> complete.  It would not make sense to wait for a release until all 160
> language translations are complete.
> I think it would be overkill to support this model via PPMC
> delegation.   OOo supports 110 languages.  At 3 PPMC members per
> language (for the required 3 +1's in a release vote) that comes to 330
> PPMC members.  Of course, there will be some overlap, so maybe it
> comes down to 200 new PPMC members or so, plus or minus 50.  I'm not
> sure that makes sense.
> So it is not clear that delegation to NL PPMC members really solves
> the problem.  We need to be having a conversation between those who
> are doing the translations, those testing the translations and the
> PPMC, on whether a translation is ready to release, either via
> language pack or as a full install.
> Of course, if the Mentors wish to mentor 110 different NL groups on
> the finer points of release management at Apache, then I don't want to
> get in their way.
> But I'll propose a simpler solution.  We should make it easy to
> nominate and approve releases of language packs and full installs
> based on already approved source releases.  All we need is some
> indication from an expert that a given translation was ready.  This
> might be from a PPMC member, a Committer, or a number of Users on the
> user list who have tried a pre-release language pack snapshot.  We
> need to rely on expertise here, expertise outside of the PPMC.  But
> once we decide to spin a new release, I don't think why this is not
> most easily done by a vote on ooo-dev.  And I'd feel much better if
> the same volunteers who are building the core installs also built the
> 110 language versions.  It makes zero sense to have 330 different
> people doing this (110 languages x 3 platforms).  There is too much
> scope for error.
> -Rob

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)

View raw message