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: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:29:55 GMT
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> 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?
>

yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.

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.

We need to take this to its own thread sometime soon I think -- maybe after
graduation? -- and see what can be done. I can't imagine that some new
methods can't be enacted.



> 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.


yes, I brought this up as well...it's a concern.


>  We're losing the provenance of the translations by
> not associating translation contributions with a user ID/email
> address.
>

No argument here...


>
> -Rob
>
> > 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"

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