Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ianrlynch@gmail.com designates
 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <16DA0D28-DA91-4E18-80A0-DF186BCC06D9@webmink.com>
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>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:51:22 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAOap24LNW75_sOwe+UOOm9=FcUqR5vcY-+VtNzs5ZamuueAnPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
From: Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce04244f551b204acbdfb2c

--000e0ce04244f551b204acbdfb2c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 12 September 2011 13:31, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:

> [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?


If that is the case I don't really see why that would be an insurmountable
issue. The PT-BR community must have some good English speakers. If there is
a code of practice procedure that says that a decision to release a new
PT-BR binary needs to be given 3 +1 binaries here all that is needed is a
post here with a summary of the discussion and the outcomes in English. That
would be useful for every non-PT speaker since English is the accepted
common denominator for languages in business generally. It would be a very
unusual set of circumstances that then prevented the 3 +1s.  Of course the
PT-BR people could release their own fork at any time under any license they
liked anyway so such a procedure and code of practice would be an
acknowledgement that we are all working together and there is one central
place for releases. That reduces scope for ambiguity and situations where
more than one similar release takes place.
-- 
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.

--000e0ce04244f551b204acbdfb2c--