Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=BYL9Bg/AT3mXoCXACVQmUK6vl/0WNeuHrEeytfqrjP7ua8OY0vu+VvQfpSayPQXI8LR9uzSdz4d0o6bhW5G9+WNVwhooXkMCYuptLVpokaa2RqE+nQGad5FcxxtU04w1O6NlFq29MvdvserU5QYHgOiIQkt52BT0AUjED1O7S4w=;
References: 
 <CAKQbXgBUfB65zdzLQYNfon65FdzuPV21s3bCQWC+8wo34pXZXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOap24+OH=+_b0Fa5pWdPy9fQFq9wy2JiANpJy8kL5mN4iyj=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgAR-vAwJvCb22yCNPSVtUVtGQsydd4RgePUZ24C30xRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <16DA0D28-DA91-4E18-80A0-DF186BCC06D9@webmink.com>
 <1315831280.29706.YahooMailNeo@web161425.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAKQbXgAwiH=87Q3zLVEWzp7mDHEwU4jPUTjJN9N2NOWp0o5KhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1315833065.80773.YahooMailNeo@web161421.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgAwiH=87Q3zLVEWzp7mDHEwU4jPUTjJN9N2NOWp0o5KhA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A>________________________________=0A>From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendi=
rective.com>=0A>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefe=
r@yahoo.com>=0A>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM=0A>Subject: Re: Um=
brella projects=0A>=0A>On 12 September 2011 13:41, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaef=
er@yahoo.com> wrote:=0A>> Well binaries do not require votes, they=0A>> are=
 considered a "courtesy service" of the=0A>> project.=0A>=0A>For clarity:=
=0A>=0A>An *official* release requires a vote. A binary snapshot release (f=
or=0A>example) does not.=0A>=0A>Usually an official release (which is a sou=
rce release) is accompanied=0A>by a binary release that is a courtesy as Jo=
e says.=0A>=0A>I think what Joe means here (apologies if I am misrepresenti=
ng you=0A>Joe) is that if, for example, Apache OO.o 3.4 were released today=
 then=0A>a native language *binary* release based on that code could be mad=
e=0A>tomorrow without a vote.=0A=0A=0ACorrect, see http://www.apache.org/de=
v/release.htmll#what-must-every-release-contain=0A=0AAll "released" binarie=
s must be buildable from voted-upon source packages.=0A=0A=0A=0A>=0A>The qu=
estion then is how much control over native language versions=0A>does the P=
PMC want and at what point is the native language version no=0A>longer cons=
idered to be a version of Apache OO.o but instead it is a=0A>downstream mod=
ification of Apache OO.o.=0A>=0A>It's for the PPMC to decide that.=0A>=0A>>=
 In any case there is sufficient=0A>> precedent which disagrees with Ross's=
 opinion=0A>> that all PPMC votes must take place here that=0A>> his positi=
on could be reasonably contested=0A>> should a valid need arise.=0A>=0A>I t=
hink my position has been morphed by this thread. My comments are=0A>not *o=
nly* about native language sub-groups, I merely used a native=0A>language g=
roup as the example.=0A>=0A>I am *not* saying that native language releases=
 are a problem.=0A>=0A>I am *not* saying that native language projects are =
*automatically*=0A>sub-projects that might lead to OO.o being an umbrella o=
f the kind the=0A>ASF does not like.=0A>=0A>What I *am* saying is that we n=
eed to be aware of how much autonomy=0A>sub-lists have. Those sub-lists may=
, or may not be, about native=0A>language versions. My mail is, as Simon sa=
ys an attempt to sound "a=0A>wake-up call that we need to put a lot more th=
ought into how the=0A>project will approach [semi-auomonous groups]"=0A>=0A=
>[Finally, for the record, I disagree that project decisions (requiring=0A>=
a vote) can be taken anywhere but here.]=0A=0A=0ATraditionally it depends o=
n the scope of the decision.=A0 Subprojects at=0Athe ASF are free to hold b=
inding votes on their sublists, presuming=0Athe decision only affects that =
subproject.=0A=0A=0A=0A>=0A>Ross=0A>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>>_____________=
___________________=0A>>>From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>=0A>>>To: oo=
o-dev@incubator.apache.org=0A>>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:31 AM=0A=
>>>Subject: Re: Umbrella projects=0A>>>=0A>>>[Recombining the thread]=0A>>>=
=0A>>>On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:43, Ross Gardler wrote:=0A>>>=0A>>>> On 12 Sept=
ember 2011 12:34, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>> O=
n 12 Sep 2011, at 10:55, Ross Gardler wrote:=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>> We need to ma=
nage this carefully. A Japanes language list to ensure=0A>>>>>> non-English=
 speaking people are able to participate in the project is=0A>>>>>> fine. A=
 Japanese language list for creating a different version of OOo=0A>>>>>> fo=
r the Japanese market is not fine.=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>> The reality is likely to=
 be somewhere in-between. For example, the PT-BR localisation of OOo was th=
e subject of extensive discussion in Portuguese about exactly how to transl=
ate various aspects of the UI, none of which would be of great relevance to=
 English-speakers but which was still development discussion. The same woul=
d be likely to apply to every locale.=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>> Let me clarify =
"different version" I meant significantly different,=0A>>>> not just a tran=
slation.=0A>>>=0A>>>You say "just a translation" but the debate on the PT-B=
R version led to two competing releases for a time, with an impact on the c=
ommunity there which lingers to this day. Localisation of a consumer applic=
ation is never "just a translation" as might happen to the strings in a ser=
ver project; substantial end-user decisions are debated, negotiated and agr=
eed by thoughtful developers.=0A>>>=0A>>>/The/ key reason for the success o=
f OpenOffice.org is that there exists a large, global community of groups o=
f localisers who each act in autonomy or semi-autonomy to create the releas=
e 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 w=
ill need to be separate projects in order to retain their locale-specific a=
utonomy.=0A>>>=0A>>>On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:44, Ross Gardler wrote:=0A>>>=0A>=
>>> On 12 September 2011 11:50, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:=0A>>=
>>> If there is to be a NL build of the AOO product to be=0A>>>>> released,=
 presumably that build will take place at Apache? Or could it take=0A>>>>> =
place elsewhere but only be formally released by Apache?=0A>>>>=0A>>>> It d=
epends on what you mean by "takes place". Anyone can build=0A>>>> anything =
they want, wherever they want. However a formal release of an=0A>>>> Apache=
 project must receive 3 binding +1's. The vote to get those=0A>>>> votes *m=
ust* be carried out here on the official dev list (this one).=0A>>>=0A>>>So=
 the release of (for example:) a new PT-BR binary needs three binding +1s o=
n this (English-speaking) list?=0A>>>=0A>>>S.=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>--=
 =0A>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)=0A>Programme Leader (Open Development)=0A>Ope=
nDirective http://opendirective.com=0A>=0A>=0A>