incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:15:18 GMT
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on this discussion so far.
> >>
> >> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
> >>
> >> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be
> visible.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:41
> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> >> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hdu@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here:
Working with
> >> pootle
> >>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results
in translators
> >> having having
> >>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing
list. The
> >> board needs to
> >>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is
desirable or
> not
> >> and what
> >>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to
the project
> to
> >> define its
> >>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management
which
> >>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users
and where
> >> new
> >>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe
combined
> >> with
> >>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible
at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and
hope that
> we
> >> can
> >>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together
with
> them
> >> on
> >>>>>>> a fast-track.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@
feel
> >> able
> >>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle
> then
> >>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
> >>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
> >>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
> >>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
> >>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
> >>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
> >>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
> >>>
> >>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> >>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> >>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> >>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have
> to
> >>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> >>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this.  A contributor
> >> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
> >> contribute documentation, etc.
> >>
> >> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
> >> SVN.  So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
> >> translations.
> >>
> >> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
> >> contributors to add translations to Pootle.  I can see the
> >> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
> >> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle.  But the anonymous part of
> >> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
> >> standpoint.
> >>
> >> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
> >> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
> >>
> >> Isn't that rather insulting?
> >>
> >
> > [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
> >
> > yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special
> submission
> > access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>
> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to
> register for access to the pootle server.
>
> We can call these people "invited translators"
>
> Should we add a line to the podling report - for the IPMC and board's
> attention?
>

I'd be happy to do that.

 And I think something like this would be ideal -- access to a specific
resource only.

>From an implementation standpoint, I don't know what could/would be done,
but that's a conversation for someone else.

Maybe let others have a say first -- I don't know what the ramifications
are of modifying a quarterly report past the deadline -- which was
yesterday.



>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >> It also makes it very difficult for the PMC to do their job, since we
> >> cannot effectively track top contributors and nominate them for
> >> committership of the work is all by "nobody".
> >>
> >> From legal perspective, we're failing to track where our contributions
> >> are coming from.  We're losing the provenance of the translations by
> >> not associating translation contributions with a user ID/email
> >> address.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >
> >
> > What I see here are some "non-standard" submissions in the Apache sense
> > emerging in OpenOffice. I was alluding to this in a post I made the other
> > day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
> > example of such a case.
> >
> > Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see
> what
> > can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
> >
> >
> >>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> >>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
> >>>
> >>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> >>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Everything will be all right in the end...
> >      if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
> >             -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Everything will be all right in the end...
      if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
             -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"

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