incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Umbrella projects
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:31:04 GMT
On 12 September 2011 17:20, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I won't say any more on this after this - I have to prepare for a trip to
South America. I just think we need some simple agreed procedures so
everyone knows what is happening in associated projects. In principle, a
single procedure that covers 100% of the requirement would be the optimal
solution. Starting with a single procedure that can cover the most  ground
is at least a start. Detail can then be checked against the procedure and if
it looks like it works no more needs to be said. If it doesn't, either
revise the procedure or add another, (unless it is trivial in which case why
bother with it anyway?) Then we could avoid long threads debating detail
that is extremely resource intensive beyond its importance.

Ross
>
> On 12 September 2011 17:08, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
> >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:07 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> 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:
> >
> > http://download.openoffice.org/other.html
> >
> > 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)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>



-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message